Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Type 1 over the years has gotten a lot more complex.  A lot more drawing, a lot more searching, a lot more cards I don't know what they do that I have to read a bunch.  I know there is only so much time in the day to play but we need to really think about tournament time being increased from 45 min to AT LEAST an hour.

     Quite a balancing act we are trying to achieve. Sufficient complexity of gameplay to be completed in a timely matter. I do agree with extending the time limit from 45mins. to 1hr. That being said, impact is probably negligible in most Local, District and some State Tournaments, but could severely impact other State, Regional and the National Tournament. 15mins added to each of 3 rounds is an additional 45mins. to a single category. It is easy to picture how the time adds up and we run out of time. I don't see any easy solution to this continued debate.
    An idea, although probably not ideal, would be Local, District and perhaps State Tournaments, use a 1 hour time limit. Regional and the National use the 45 min. time limit. My thought behind this is your Local, District and State are prime training time to learn about your deck in competition. With Regional and National tournaments you should be familiar with what you are running knowing you are going into a higher level of competitive play. As I said, an idea and probably not ideal, but at least thinking about possible solutions.
   
Godspeed,
Mike

Type 1 over the years has gotten a lot more complex.  A lot more drawing, a lot more searching, a lot more cards I don't know what they do that I have to read a bunch. 

Don't forget:

   - The advent of the Reserve means players are playing 53 card decks instead of 43 card decks (LS don't count) - more than a 20% increase
   - The advent of Star abilities means players are activating abilities during the beginning of games and in Draw phases
   - LS abilities - more complex, more powerful
   - The ever-increasing number of ongoing abilities that players need to remain vigilant/cognizant of, lest they burn themselves (think Mayhem/RBD)

The OH States tournament taught me that 45 minutes isn't close to enough time to play a T1 game.  Soooo many games were at 1-1, 3-1, 2-0, etc. when time was called. 

In my first Booster game at OH States, I got exactly 5 turns.  The first 4 of those, there were no LS in my opponent's LoB.  (Part of that was worsened by Star abilities topdecking cards from my opponent's Reserve though - I would have been able to rescue on turn 4 had he not been doing Star abilities).  I lost 2-0, and I'm pretty sure my defense had my opponent locked out at that point.

I really think the massive increase in Searches and Negates is what really costs Redemption games the most time.  Searches take so much time when they go to deck.  And undoing stuff that was already done, or trying to figure out what a Negate is actually undoing (because cascading), takes a lot of time too.

I'll reserve the right to make my comments until after NC Regs lest I eat my words, but I'm fairly certain the current time limit is fine

I am with John since TN State is in the back window now.

I agree with this:

Quote from: SiLeNcEd_MaTrIx on July 05, 2019, 01:52:05 PM

Type 1 over the years has gotten a lot more complex.  A lot more drawing, a lot more searching, a lot more cards I don't know what they do that I have to read a bunch. 

Don't forget:

   - The advent of the Reserve means players are playing 53 card decks instead of 43 card decks (LS don't count) - more than a 20% increase
   - The advent of Star abilities means players are activating abilities during the beginning of games and in Draw phases
   - LS abilities - more complex, more powerful
   - The ever-increasing number of ongoing abilities that players need to remain vigilant/cognizant of, lest they burn themselves (think Mayhem/RBD)

The OH States tournament taught me that 45 minutes isn't close to enough time to play a T1 game.  Soooo many games were at 1-1, 3-1, 2-0, etc. when time was called. 

I really think the massive increase in Searches and Negates is what really costs Redemption games the most time.  Searches take so much time when they go to deck.  And undoing stuff that was already done, or trying to figure out what a Negate is actually undoing (because cascading), takes a lot of time too.

And I would say that it does not only apply to T1 games, but T2 games as well, and T2 games are already 75 minutes long!  So, as The Watchman says, it is not ideal to increase the time allowed for games.

My proposed solution:

Change the swiss-style point reward structure

Currently you receive 3 points for an outright win, but only 2 points if you win and the game times out.  Is a game that is won 6-1 closer than a game that is won 7-6?  I would say in most cases, no.  Why then, is the player who wins 6-1 punished by not receiving full points?  I know I would not be nearly as upset when a game times out if I still received 3 points for the win.

If you look at the competitive scene in any other collectable game (CCG or otherwise) you'll find that the successful people spend a good deal of time learning all the components and knowing their build inside and out. Redemption really isn't any different.

I don't really think that is an accurate comparison. For one, Redemption's entire cardpool is basically still in the game, so you have all of that to know in the back of your mind as you play. Since each decision is partially based on what you think the opponent is doing, this can prolong each turn, especially if you haven't played each other before.

Next, T1 Redemption is unlike other card games in that there are no duplicates. Other games present less choice based on the simple fact that you are better off running 3-4 of your best card, so your plan is pretty clear based on the fact you have fewer options. There are far less variations in those games, and they'll play out pretty much the same no matter your draw. There's just so many more possibilities with how your deck can come up in Redemption that memorizing certain interactions is no guarantee that you'll even have that come up in any given game. Some games you have to come up with plans you've never run into in any game before.

Another thing is that Redemption requires your opponent to have souls for you to even do anything most of the time. You can win the big three card games based on your cards alone. You don't need to rely on your opponent to draw a set number of cards from his deck to even have a shot at winning.

Also, most other games have far more time put into them in terms of netdecking. They have way more results and data and even more ways to play. It's way easier looking up results, looking at a deck list, watching that deck in action, looking up matchups, etc in other games. All these things go towards streamlining play and improving efficiency. Because so few games of Redemption happen for many players in the course of a year, all these things take longer.

These are the things that immediately come to mind. I think it's unfair to compare Redemption to other popular card games. It's almost designed to take longer. I would honestly prefer a longer time limit. There's just so much going on in a game nowadays that just taking one turn can easily take 5+ minutes. Of the two games at regionals I timed out, if we had an extended time limit, I would've finished at least one of those, if not both.

While a timed out game due to LS drought isn't ideal, I don't really see the problem with timed out games in general. If a game times out and there was no LS drought involved, that likely means the decks, draws and players were evenly matched. If a game times out because one or both players are playing exceedingly slow, I'm not sure the game is to blame for that.

While a timed out game due to LS drought isn't ideal, I don't really see the problem with timed out games in general. If a game times out and there was no LS drought involved, that likely means the decks, draws and players were evenly matched. If a game times out because one or both players are playing exceedingly slow, I'm not sure the game is to blame for that.

The problem is that swiss style punishes timeout anything. Did Josh not know his deck, prepare poorly, and/or play too slow when you time out-beat Josh? No, you soul-droughted him and bounced him to me. Someone who met all of those things 

Dominants in booster draft is another thing that should be looked over. You can draft them but not play them, which is like the site rule. Seems more fair.

Quote from: The Guardian on July 10, 2019, 12:26:31 AM

While a timed out game due to LS drought isn't ideal, I don't really see the problem with timed out games in general. If a game times out and there was no LS drought involved, that likely means the decks, draws and players were evenly matched. If a game times out because one or both players are playing exceedingly slow, I'm not sure the game is to blame for that.

The problem is that swiss style punishes timeout anything. Did Josh not know his deck, prepare poorly, and/or play too slow when you time out-beat Josh? No, you soul-droughted him and bounced him to me. Someone who met all of those things 

Dominants in booster draft is another thing that should be looked over. You can draft them but not play them, which is like the site rule. Seems more fair.

You should probably re-read my report...Josh was the one who LS droughted me...I was even using GoYS to instead his Sheol triggers... 

I was fortunate to get a first turn d9 off Damsel, which set me up to have optimal blocks the whole game, but that's the risk of using multi GE and it was the reward I got for using Damsel. I'm not claiming I had a better deck than Josh's because I know his deck is very, very good, but mine is certainly equipped to counter some of his strategies, and it did exactly that.

I am not a big fan of extending Type-1 (or any category) time limits as tournaments are long as it is. This is not a length of round issue or even a familiarity with cards issue for me. IMO the complexity of the game is such that we could continue to expand time restraints and the game would fill what we give it. In Type-1 we could address this in a variety of ways including but not limited to:

-Smaller deck size (40 instead of 50)
-Lower win condition (4 instead of 5)
-Separate Lost Soul deck with 1 Soul drawn per turn
-"Soul Seek" when a player has no souls available their opponent can search their deck for a soul and put it in play in lieu of their battle phase

There are probably other ways but these seem to be the most obvious to me up front. Faster games, not longer rounds is the solution I can support as a tournament host and as an old guy who is experiencing sciatica more and more.

I am not a big fan of extending Type-1 (or any category) time limits as tournaments are long as it is. This is not a length of round issue or even a familiarity with cards issue for me. IMO the complexity of the game is such that we could continue to expand time restraints and the game would fill what we give it. In Type-1 we could address this in a variety of ways including but not limited to:

-Smaller deck size (40 instead of 50)
-Lower win condition (4 instead of 5)
-Separate Lost Soul deck with 1 Soul drawn per turn
-"Soul Seek" when a player has no souls available their opponent can search their deck for a soul and put it in play in lieu of their battle phase

There are probably other ways but these seem to be the most obvious to me up front. Faster games, not longer rounds is the solution I can support as a tournament host and as an old guy who is experiencing sciatica more and more.

I am going to play-test a category where all lost souls have no special abilities and start in territory.

I am going to play-test a category where all lost souls have no special abilities and start in territory.

I'd be interested in testing this. Would it still be the same deckbuilding rules, with essentially 43 card decks?

Quote from: Bobbert on July 10, 2019, 03:18:14 PM

Quote from: TheHobbit on July 10, 2019, 02:02:28 PM

I am going to play-test a category where all lost souls have no special abilities and start in territory.

I'd be interested in testing this. Would it still be the same deckbuilding rules, with essentially 43 card decks?

Personally I'd prefer a format without souls in main deck to keep the 50 card limit. The game could use a little reduction in consistency.

That sounds good. Personally I am going to make 60 card decks which are more conducive to teaching beginning players the game. The decks will be pseudo balanced 30-30 good and evil. Pseudo meaning defensive artifacts will be counted as evil and offense artifacts will be counted as good. Then I will show people my lost soul book and say now in real tournaments there are a lot of amazing lost souls! Unfortunately, I cannot trade/sell any of mine but the I am sure the tournament host or TLG has some to sell.

This is also something I feel like we need to be better at as a community. Stop selling your random cards and just trade/ give them away  at tournaments to other people.