Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Redemption® Resources and Thinktank => Topic started by: galadgawyn on June 09, 2014, 07:18:47 AM
-
It has been interesting to me that in the past year there seem to be at the same time signs that Redemption may be sinking and almost done and conversely a readiness to rebound and be as great as it has ever been.
This is not meant as a complaint thread but to see what people think the potential of Redemption is and what the negative/positives are. I hope people can take an honest look at the state of the game/community without trash talking or being defensive.
signs of the end imho:
I have never seen so few tournaments listed throughout the year. And several of the state/regional tournaments that are being done seem to have barely gotten there. Similarly it seems like several active areas have faded away.
There seems to be a much larger supply of cards from people selling their collections then their is demand of people wanting to build a collection.
The message boards have not been very active this year.
A lack of sound game design or creativity leading to adding a new brigade.
Not getting a full set even with the attempts to fundraise for it.
The economy is difficult and it is harder for people to travel and have money for hobbies.
There is more competition for peoples time (social media, video games, etc.) then there used to be.
Positive signs:
Good game design and creativity with some of the new card previews looking pretty cool with interesting abilities.
Several new people on here from Chicago, Alaska, Germany, etc. I think some of those might be a first. In addition the Chicago guy mentioned his group had 20 (or 50?) players and even though they are new they could end up being one of the largest groups in the country.
Even with the difficulties this year, you see the continued support of Rob and other veterans to get things worked out. This includes the willingness to look at doing things differently.
Other card games are doing well and even having record tournaments which indicates there is still an audience for in person gaming.
Great friendships have been made and are still being made through this game.
The fact that many new people are not being finally convinced to try Redemption but rather are hearing about it for the first time. This indicates to me that there is still a huge untapped market for Redemption and it has the potential to be bigger than it has ever been.
So what do you think will happen or what else is there to consider?
-
There seems to be a much larger supply of cards from people selling their collections then their is demand of people wanting to build a collection.
I think this is more a perception issue than it is necessarily a real concern. The idea that there is a sell off of collections is being driven by four very recent offerings of T2 collections (which are by necessity large). Of these, however, two (Kirk's and Josiah's) were sold for life-related reasons that are entirely outside the game. The last (mine) could have been sold at any time since Nats 2012 with the timing being more than anything a matter of coincidence. After a number of years in which sales of major collections have been very infrequent this strikes me as just an example where statistics ultimately catch up with you.
On the positive side, you forgot to mention new cards at Nats 2014 with plans for continuing the set beyond that timeframe.
-
A lack of sound game design or creativity leading to adding a new brigade.
....
Good game design and creativity with some of the new card previews looking pretty cool with interesting abilities.
How did the same point end up on both the good and bad lists?
-
I think the game has a fair shot at a rebound. The Clay brigade has me very excited and think it with the new starters and new card layout could really give the game a fresh feel. I am working hard to get decks together and get a group going here to help the game out and am thankful for all the great work being put into the game. Thank you Rob for putting up with us all these years filled with complaining and other things. Thank you for making this awesome game!
-
I think there is still enough of a fan base that this is not ending any time soon. I have a feeling that this Nats is going to be big, one of the biggest and there are plenty of players willing to fight for this to last.
-
A lack of sound game design or creativity leading to adding a new brigade.
I have to respectfully disagree on this one. There are more viable themes/strategies than ever before, so instead of getting to a point where we were making every theme exactly like the others, it was time for a new theme. Granted there are still themes that need development, but leaving some themes underdeveloped now leaves open the possibility of giving those themes stronger "counter" cards down the road (I'm looking at you Greeks).
Many players thought the Early Church set could have been done in current brigades (most people said Blue) and I myself at first thought it would have worked out okay that way. However, once everyone sees the eventual depth that the Clay brigade will have, I believe most if not all will agree it was the right call to give it its own brigade.
-
So, basically it was the right call to not give a currently one-dimensional brigade more depth and instead further dilute the color pool with even more colors. Sounds legit.
-
I would call it enriching the color pool, but to each their own. 8)
-
I believe that this last year has been very slow due to very few new developments up until very recently. We had already played one Nats with the most recent set of cards, so the novelty of building decks had long since worn off. Additionally, Nats was announced extremely late this year. I've spent the last year suggesting that the game will be completely unable to recover if new cards aren't released at Nats, and fortunately, I won't have to find out if I'm right. You'll note that activity has definitely been up in the last month or so since Nats and the new cards were announced. It's definitely an uphill battle right now, but I'm extremely impressed with the strides that have been made recently to begin to recover. I have high hopes for Redemption's future.
So, basically it was the right call to not give a currently one-dimensional brigade more depth and instead further dilute the color pool with even more colors. Sounds legit.
The reason I've often heard that the Early Church theme will not be in blue is because Rob (and others) believe that multiple other themes can still be developed from Genesis (and possibly flesh out Job more). Noah, Creation, continued expansion of the sons of Jacob, "Patriarchs" (Isaac, Abraham, Sarah, etc.). It wasn't that Blue is too full to introduce a new major theme right now, it's that Genesis itself is so big that it can reasonably take up blue on it's own in the next few years. Again, I'm not particularly thrilled about the decision, but there is a decent reason for it.
-
My biggest issue with an early church brigade is that I don't think the early church should have been in a single brigade, whether that be one we currently have or a new one (although I have other issues with a new brigade, but that's a different rant)
As for the future of Redemption I don't know. There are quite a few factors that will influence it, I love this game and will continue to play it despite the flaws (or things I personally don't care for but aren't strictly speaking flaws) for as long as I enjoy it and I have people to play with.
I would like to see a complete reboot or some sort of modern/classic split but that doesn't mean I won't continue to support Redemption as it is.
-
How did the same point end up on both the good and bad lists?
Because I personally see evidence to support it being in both lists. What is really true here is I think open for debate.
There are more viable themes/strategies than ever before, so instead of getting to a point where we were making every theme exactly like the others, it was time for a new theme.
This is part of my point. I think a new theme is great, particularly the Early Church theme which I've wanted for a while. I also like what I've seen for abilities in that theme in sample cards so far. However, I think the same idea could have been even stronger in an existing brigade without having the drawbacks of a new brigade.
However, once everyone sees the eventual depth that the Clay brigade will have
Precisely, which is why I said that if it was being released as part of a 300 card expansion and Redemption had 4 expansions a year then it would take care of many of the drawbacks to the new brigade. It is possible that individual card design is so amazing that the new set is successful in spite of the new brigade but I don't think it will be successful because of it.
-
I fear for the implications it will have on the limited formats. Clay will be the kid who eats glue and licks windows that no one wants to play with.
-
I agree and at the normal rate of Redemption card releases it will take several years for that to be fixed. However a single large set designed to draft that set could fix that.
Which brings me to some related questions:
What is the biggest thing holding back Redemption and/or what are the biggest things that could be done to improve or promote it?
-
Clay will be the kid who eats glue and licks windows that no one wants to play with.
So you're saying clay is the Internet Explorer of Redemption brigades? ;)
On topic, I don't mind the idea of a new brigade (though I personally hope it's more a brown shade rather than the pinkish preview Daniel posted) but I do wonder something. Is the early church a theme that can become as big as Genesis and end up taking up a whole brigade on its own? Is clay going to end up being a somewhat gimped brigade like Teal in that it has very strict limits on what can be printed in it and not a whole lot of source material from an entire Testament (there would be 0 OT clay cards if it's only early church, at least Teal has a few NT cards)? I get the logic of having blue only for Genesis (a lot happens in that book over long periods of time so there's a lot to draw from), but I fear that they may end up with the new brigade being similarly one-sided (theme wise) and end up not being as useful as it could have been.
Or they could just have an OT theme for Clay also (not really sure what it'd be) and that'd solve the problem. :P
-
I've said it before, and I'll say it again:
If Teal and Orange could be printed in one set to the point that you could even draft each in Booster just on that release, and we have seen that work, then why do we see immediate complaints about how a new one could not be viable right away?
I agree with everyone and would think that the 'new' church could fit in the 'new' color that is Blue, but I have never thought that it wouldn't be possible to have it work out, and I'm frankly baffled by the posts insisting that it would fall flat over and over.
-
I'm frankly baffled by the posts insisting that it would fall flat over and over.
I have not meant to imply that but rather to say that in comparison it won't be as good as the alternative of not having a new color.
and we have seen that work
We have different assumptions here. I saw problems with the new colors in Priests in booster and was hoping we could learn from past mistakes to improve the game. So again this was not meant as a complaint but rather a longtime fan and supporter of the game trying to express concern because I would like it to be as good as possible. I feel adding a new brigade like this is a bad decision but it does not exist in a bubble and other good decisions can make it work and even improve the game in spite of this one bad decision.
-
I fear for the implications it will have on the limited formats. Clay will be the kid who eats glue and licks windows that no one wants to play with.
Clay, in the upcoming set, is unlikely to be seen in Sealed at all unless Rob, Chris, and Pat decide they want to spread the love, which really only leaves Booster Draft. If tradition holds (and there's zero reason why it wouldn't), this new set will be the last one drafted, and thus, have the least amount of overall impact in the game. Even in a worst case scenario, the introduction of clay has zero impact on Booster Draft because it's so sparse and underdeveloped that nobody plays it. At least for this upcoming year, there's no reason to expect that clay will have a negative impact on Booster Draft, and I can't think of a reason it would be inherently negative outside of Booster that hasn't already been debunked elsewhere. The only reason to worry about clay is that it will result in an initially weak theme, and I've been assured many times over that that is far from being the case. There are far too many people complaining about it without actually seeing more than a handful of cards. At this point, it's too late to go back and eliminate clay as a brigade anyway, so it's just complaining to complain at this point. Bringing it up is not going to do anything, because it isn't really changeable now.
-
Clay will be the kid who eats glue and licks windows that no one wants to play with.
So you're saying clay is the Internet Explorer of Redemption brigades? ;)
Yup.
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fanimal3.messiah.co.nz%2Fs%2Fcommon%2Fimages%2Fie-glue-eater.a391cf5727cb.jpg&hash=6ac9d815fc6d8f05b4f5b052ec41c3d3af5e28f1)
I'm frankly baffled by the posts insisting that it would fall flat over and over.
I have not meant to imply that but rather to say that in comparison it won't be as good as the alternative of not having a new color.
and we have seen that work
We have different assumptions here. I saw problems with the new colors in Priests in booster and was hoping we could learn from past mistakes to improve the game.
Agreed, there were many problems with Teal and Orange initially in limited. Severely underdeveloped brigades led to an underwhelming transition into draft and sealed pools. And that was with a 250 card set vs a 50-60ish card set now. Perhaps Clay would have been better received in the I/J starters with a supplemental release next to it. Sure the starter would still have complications in limited with past cards, but many have suggested I/J being a good starting point towards a new format anyway.
-
I have drafted and used very useful components of my deck of Teal or Orange just from Priests, and have seen people take Priests (even before I/J) in Sealed. So I have NO idea why people think they don't work in closed categories.
-
I have drafted and used very useful components of my deck of Teal or Orange just from Priests, and have seen people take Priests (even before I/J) in Sealed. So I have NO idea why people think they don't work in closed categories.
Note also that the new starter decks have more good multi-color enhancements than previous starter decks, so using Clay (or Teal) in Sealed Deck would not be unjustified.
-
If a Teal/Orange 'deck' (read: an assortment of characters and supplemental enhancements, not just simply splash stand-alones) was drafted strictly from Priests, then more props to the person. I can't say I have ever managed to accomplish such a feat and create an entire alignment in only a single round of draft. Of 10 cards. The odds must simply be astronomical.
Taking and using either color as an actual alignment also doesn't mean it translates into crafting a deck that has a decent chance at being tournament caliber.
-
Not sure why you have to include that level of sarcasm in your post, or why you would assume that anyone ever uses only one color in Booster. If you are using less than 3 colors on each alignment, you got very lucky in general. That has nothing to do with Teal/Orange being viable, which is definitely is.
-
Teal and Orange are awesome in draft, they have large characters, fairly stong enhancements (for draft anyway) and you are almost guarenteed to get some Teal or Orange if you are drafting Priests, sure you only get 10 Priests cards, but even having 2 or 3 Teal cards can be fairly strong when your Priest is large and your enhancements discard evil enhancements.
-
I believe the discussion at hand is the validity of drafting a 'viable' alignment in Teal or Orange strictly from Priests. From 10 cards. 3 to 4 packs in the round. Barring anyone hate drafting your bombs suited in Teal or Orange. Barring any RLK at the table taking some random Orange or Teal because it was the shiny new stuff.
Yeah sorry, just didn't happen in 2006.
Soldier, I won't argue that it isn't possible to get a small splash of Teal or Orange in Priests alone. But the odds are certainly stacked against you, especially when compared to brigades that have a high amount of saturation and threat density in expansions Pre-Priests.
-
I believe the discussion at hand is the validity of drafting a 'viable' alignment in Teal or Orange strictly from Priests.
Maybe I missed what someone else said, but I never said anything of the sort. I said that you could draft it into your booster decks and have it be useful from the start (pre-tins that added Teal support). No one makes a single-brigade booster deck that works, so if you are holding the brigade to a higher standard than any other for 'success' then that is what is leading to your error.
-
Redemption is losing players faster than it's gaining them.
If you really think the new set is the start of a "resurgence," then please explain how adding a new brigade will attract new people.
-
It's a moot comparison. The new set is being released the same way TxP and Disciples were, meaning you won't draft more than four new cards. Even if clay didn't exist, the new set still wouldn't make much of an impact offensively. We have no idea what cards are going to be released at Nats this year, so there's no reason to speculate about how drafting blue cards would have made a huge difference in draft, because there's simply no way to tell. That is a huge departure from the 15 card packs dominated by teal and orange that were released in 2006. Oh, and 2006 was pre-tins, which drastically shifted how we approach booster draft today. Comparing the introduction of teal with the introduction of clay, especially when we have next to no information on how developed clay will be out of the box is ridiculous.
If you really think the new set is the start of a "resurgence," then please explain how adding a new brigade will attract new people.
A good portion of the drop off of people playing Redemption can be attributed to no non-starter being released in three years. Releasing a 150 card set is an excellent step towards revitalizing the game.
-
I will say that releasing a new set has the possibility of giving life to new decks and strategies that could revitilize playgroups and bring more people into it, however it also could very easily increase the complexity barrier for new players, and it will most likely not decrease it, so it may not help all that much in the long run.
While I don't personally like the new brigade, I don't think it will have a short term negative impact on the number of players or the health of the game, since none of the other new brigades did, they were also packed in revolutionary sets (Warriors and Priests) both of which had things that were very good for the game so it is hard to tell whether it was helped by the introduction of new brigades or they were revolutionary in spite of it.
-
A good portion of the drop off of people playing Redemption can be attributed to no non-starter being released in three years.
I don't think so.
Redemption has had problems with attendance and sales since Disciples, and if a delay between sets was the biggest factor, then why didn't we see similar loss of players between the release of Angel Wars and Priests?
Even if the new set allows the game to recover to pre-hiatus levels of attendance (which I highly doubt), you're still not bring in new people. In fact, the massive increase in complexity over the last few sets has made it even harder for a new player to get into the game.
-
A new "boxed booster" may have even less of an impact on Booster Draft than previously mentioned, since many tournaments, especially at lower levels, use tins and foil packs to keep the cost down. Using TxP/Disc/EC ramps up the cost significantly, so I (for one) seldom use them, Neither NE Regionals nor NJ States will use them, so I can try to make the tournaments as affordable as possible.
(As an aside, I would love to see a return to "classic" draft, with just foil packs. It was more random, but required a certain level of skill to draft well. And it didn't come down to who got lucky and got the "power" tin in whatever the current set was.)
-
JSB, you're right. Best just give up on the game now.
-
A good portion of the drop off of people playing Redemption can be attributed to no non-starter being released in three years.
I don't think so.
Redemption has had problems with attendance and sales since Disciples, and if a delay between sets was the biggest factor, then why didn't we see similar loss of players between the release of Angel Wars and Priests?
Even if the new set allows the game to recover to pre-hiatus levels of attendance (which I highly doubt), you're still not bring in new people. In fact, the massive increase in complexity over the last few sets has made it even harder for a new player to get into the game.
Complexity? Really? Redemption is fairly simple especially compared to most card games today.
-
Several points to make:
1) I've always liked the teal brigade. The tins adding to their strengths.
2) Unless booster Draft has changed majorly since I last played in 2012, you rarely played with less than 2 good/evil brigades. Sometimes however just one card from a 3rd brigade could win you the round.
3) One of Redemption ' s weaknesses has always been lack of being out there. Most secular card/comic stores don't carry it, few Christian/religious stores do. Those that do often don't carry the starter decks or tins. Lifeway and Mardels are the Christian stores near to me. Mardels hasn't carried Redemption since 2011 and Lifeway only carries the Angel Wars and Unlimited packs.
4) Folks are always dropping hobbies when funds are tight. When the funds are back up again some will return.
5) My opinion only- the new format lost us some players. However with the new format we may start seeing more of the younger generation showing up (that's the 8-13 yr olds).
6) Remember this discussion when there's Nats next year (wherever it is) and see how many folks we got.
7) I just saw a ad for something called CreationFeast. Perhaps someone can set up a booth there and promote the game, with Rob ' s permission of course.
-
I believe the discussion at hand is the validity of drafting a 'viable' alignment in Teal or Orange strictly from Priests.
Maybe I missed what someone else said, but I never said anything of the sort.
No one is claiming that is what you said. I am insisting this was the discussion I was having from the very start with my concerns about Clay in limited.
I said that you could draft it into your booster decks and have it be useful from the start (pre-tins that added Teal support).
Cool. I understand that. And I further elaborated for clarification that drafting Teal or Orange as an actual cohesive brigade and not just splash stand-alone strictly from Priests alone was simply not a viable strategy at the time Priests was released. I have already outlined the various reasons why. At the pace Redemption goes, it takes years to fully flesh out a brand new brigade that will actually be competitive against other brigades in limited formats. I have seen zero reason at all to believe this would be an exception for Clay, especially with a far smaller card pool than what Priests had.
No one makes a single-brigade booster deck that works, so if you are holding the brigade to a higher standard than any other for 'success' then that is what is leading to your error.
No one said mono-anything works. I have no idea where you even pulled this from.
-
Booster Draft is largely irrelevant to new card creation IMO.
I don't see a resurgence in Redemption happening unless something drastic happens. I was excited when the starter decks came out, but nothing happened. There are some fundamental issues that need to be addressed first. I'm not sure this is the time or place for that though. I don't think the game/card design has anything to do with it.
-
A good portion of the drop off of people playing Redemption can be attributed to no non-starter being released in three years.
I don't think so.
Redemption has had problems with attendance and sales since Disciples, and if a delay between sets was the biggest factor, then why didn't we see similar loss of players between the release of Angel Wars and Priests?
Even if the new set allows the game to recover to pre-hiatus levels of attendance (which I highly doubt), you're still not bring in new people. In fact, the massive increase in complexity over the last few sets has made it even harder for a new player to get into the game.
Complexity? Really? Redemption is fairly simple especially compared to most card games today.
Which card games are you referring to? Redemption is definitely more complex than Pokemon (but of course that's a particularly simple card game), My knowledge of Yu-Gi-Oh! is very outdated, but from what I remember Redemption is more complex than it, at least as far as difficulty to get into it. Magic the Gathering is the only one I know that might be more complex, however that is only when you consider the eternal formats and possibly modern (and it can be in casual depending on the card pools available). Finally when you add the difficulty to find obscure rulings in Redemption compared to these other games you might see why it's difficult to get new players into the game.
-
Booster Draft is largely irrelevant to new card creation IMO.
Why should this not hold true for other competitive formats but apply towards limited formats?
-
Booster Draft is largely irrelevant to new card creation IMO.
Why should this not hold true for other competitive formats but apply towards limited formats?
Redemption was created with Type I in mind and to a large extent is the primary focus of the game. Even Type II gets the short end of the stick when it comes to testing.
-
Type 2 is what I was referring to largely outside of Type 1. What reasons are there Redemption card design cannot accommodate multiple competitive formats?
-
Complexity? Really? Redemption is fairly simple especially compared to most card games today.
Hardly.
Out of all the games I've played, I'd say Redemption is by far the most complex.
The basic structure and gameplay, are both very simple, however everything after that is ridiculously complex.
In order to play at any decent level, you need to know nineteen years worth of cards. Sure, blue packs are mostly garbage, but if you don't know how the doubler works, you're out of luck.
Heck, at this point you pretty much need to play with the REG open, since half the cards don't do what's printed on them.
And don't even get me started on the tangled mess we have, instead of a real set of rules.
What reasons are there Redemption card design cannot accommodate multiple competitive formats?
Theoretically it's possible to balance two competitive formats. However, the design team hasn't been able to do it.
-
Redemption card design does accommodate multiple competitive formats, despite the extra amount of testing and planning that inherently goes into that. Very few other CCGs attempt to balance two completely different rule sets into their card design, and the fact that Redemption has managed to do it for so long with such a small selection of volunteers is impressive. That said, not every decision has to be in the interest of every format, especially when there are seven of them right now. I don't think most people treat Booster as seriously as they do other categories, if only because it's not really possible to spend a year planning out every facet of a deck and there's no real meta. If people don't treat open categories as seriously as they do closed categories, why should the playtesters prioritize open categories over closed categories? Even if I'm wrong about that, there's still no evidence to suggest that Booster is negatively impacted by a new brigade. Furthermore, I'm still not sure why everyone is complaining when complaining isn't going to accomplish anything.
I don't see a resurgence in Redemption happening unless something drastic happens. I was excited when the starter decks came out, but nothing happened. There are some fundamental issues that need to be addressed first. I'm not sure this is the time or place for that though. I don't think the game/card design has anything to do with it.
Keep in mind that the Starter Decks and the tin did little to alter the meta last year. We had high hopes because we assumed there would be a more drastic shift, when in fact the decks that many people played (including the both of us) weren't very different from what they would have been otherwise. I do agree there are other problems that need to be addressed, a new large-ish set is the first step in my opinion.
Theoretically it's possible to balance two competitive formats. However, the design team hasn't been able to do it.
T2 players can feel free to correct me here, but I'm under the impression that both formats are healthier than they've been in years. There's a general consensus among the T1 players I've talked to that it's a fairly balanced meta with a lot of options, and I've gotten a positive impression from T2 players as well.
-
Theoretically it's possible to balance two competitive formats. However, the design team hasn't been able to do it.
Which format is suffering? :scratch: It's certainly not T2, which has more viable deck strategies than it ever has.
Even Type II gets the short end of the stick when it comes to testing.
I can assure you this is not the case. Going back to the original FooF set, I can think of two cards that I think got overlooked when it comes to T2 potency: Samaritan Water Jar (should have been a once per game ability) and Assyrian Siege Army (should have been unique). While certain other cards have needed to be balanced with new counters, that kind of meta evolution is what keeps the game fresh and fun.
-
Every game ebbs and flows from time to time. I honestly think that Redemption is poised for a huge surge of interest and involvement.
-
Every game ebbs and flows from time to time. I honestly think that Redemption is poised for a huge surge of interest and involvement.
At least you're praying for that with crossed fingers and toes, as much money as you're sinking into the game. ;)
-
Simply an investment in the future.
-
Another thing to consider is that as a Christian CCG, Redemption essentially has zero competition. I'm not in any way implying that means it can get away with a lesser quality product, but I do believe it means that there is a place for it as long as there are Christians who enjoy CCGs. (And not to forget the many non-Christians who have been or are currently a part of this game and its community.) :)
-
Or a lot of type 2 decks. :P
I don't see a resurgence in Redemption happening unless something drastic happens.
Maybe. I think something like having a well designed computer version that has varying AI and enhanced reliable online play would be that kind of drastic change. I can dream.
There are some fundamental issues that need to be addressed first
I would really like to know what you think these are or what drastic change you think could be possible.
Another thing to consider is that as a Christian CCG, Redemption essentially has zero competition.
and yet it has had considerable difficulty in getting wide support from Christian churches, schools, etc. It is one of those areas that has a lot more potential than has ever been realized. In certain circles it is because it is a card game and if it was a board game it wouldn't have the same problem. Not sure how to get past some of the prejudicial attitudes for promoting the game.
-
Closed categories shouldn't affect card design. I don't even think closed categories should be official though...
-
Very few other CCGs attempt to balance two completely different rule sets into their card design...
The big CCG's that have limited play most certainly do. MtG most recently devoted an entire expansion towards limited in addition to always having every constructed block heavily designed with limited in mind. Yugioh has its line of Battle Packs specifically designed towards limited play. If that is what you meant by 'very few' CCGs, then you are most certainly correct.
That said, not every decision has to be in the interest of every format, especially when there are seven of them right now.
My position is if a game offers a competitive format, it should make great strides to ensure all of its bases are covered in terms of balancing. I do agree that seven is a bit excessive...
I don't think most people treat Booster as seriously as they do other categories, if only because it's not really possible to spend a year planning out every facet of a deck and there's no real meta.
...but I do not agree limited is not a 'serious' category. There are other skills associated with draft/sealed that do not apply with constructed play. And yes, there is no meta, but that is mainly due to no standardized card pool with each limited event.
If people don't treat open categories as seriously as they do closed categories, why should the playtesters prioritize open categories over closed categories?
Again, its a matter of perspective. If a game company offers a format in a competitive tournament format with players vying for prizes, what gave you the indication some people, if not most, do not take limited formats 'seriously'?
Even if I'm wrong about that, there's still no evidence to suggest that Booster is negatively impacted by a new brigade.
I have attested the impact Priests circa 2006 has had on limited play as well as the reasons outlined why is pretty solid evidence.
Furthermore, I'm still not sure why everyone is complaining when complaining isn't going to accomplish anything.
I'm not entirely certain why people complain about people complaining when it accomplishes nothing, but people still do it.
-
Even Type II gets the short end of the stick when it comes to testing.
I can assure you this is not the case. Going back to the original FooF set, I can think of two cards that I think got overlooked when it comes to T2 potency: Samaritan Water Jar (should have been a once per game ability) and Assyrian Siege Army (should have been unique). While certain other cards have needed to be balanced with new counters, that kind of meta evolution is what keeps the game fresh and fun.
Didn't you just prove my point?.......
-
I dunno, did I? I came up with 2 cards out of about 550 where we later thought, "Hmm, that was a bit stronger in T2 than we anticipated" and that makes you think T2 has gotten the short end of the stick? o_O
-
The context of his point was in regards to Type 2 not being balanced for competitive play during playtesting.
-
Even Type II gets the short end of the stick when it comes to testing.
I can assure you this is not the case. Going back to the original FooF set, I can think of two cards that I think got overlooked when it comes to T2 potency: Samaritan Water Jar (should have been a once per game ability) and Assyrian Siege Army (should have been unique).
So printing Hidden Treasures and the CBN version of Search in the same tin was not an overlooked issue in T2? Was the plan going into FoOF to uproot the T2-MP meta and replace it with a single archetype?
How many potency issues were resolved by the changes to T2 deck building rules, and was changing the T2 deck building rules also part of the plan going in or was it a response to power creep?
Finally, how much "responsibility" is borne by the T2 side of the fence when it comes to to the cards that had "potency" issues for both T1 and T2--cards like TGT and Thad, the rise of pre-block ignore (e.g., Jacob + RTC), and the ascendance of the chump block (e.g., Uzzah)?
I am sorry if this seems like a slam on the play testers, as it is not meant as such. I think it is important, however, to make an honest accounting of what worked and what didn't so that things that do not work do not get repeated.
-
I know I'm a day late for this part of the discussion, but for those that say Redemption is more complicated than other games I'm guessing you don't know about the Magic the Gathering Comprehensive Rulebook (their version of the REG) that is 200 some pages of definitions, rules explanations, and ability interaction resolutions. Makes our REG look like a children's book. ;)
Just wanted to point that out.
-
I feel I speak for a lot of players when I say Redemption has taken a back-seat to other things. Most of the players I started playing with have moved on to other things (college, jobs, marriage, family, etc) and don't have the time to host, attend tournaments, or teach new players anymore.
Redemption doesn't necessarily need new cards every year (though that helps keep interest and generate excitement for the game), it needs more new players. This becomes difficult when most people my age would much rather do something else than take the time to learn a card game, spend money to collect all the cards needed to make decks, and practice until you know the cards well enough. The problem with attracting new younger players (from what I've seen), is the game is a lot harder to get into now than it was 8 years ago when I started.
-
I know I'm a day late for this part of the discussion, but for those that say Redemption is more complicated than other games I'm guessing you don't know about the Magic the Gathering Comprehensive Rulebook (their version of the REG) that is 200 some pages of definitions, rules explanations, and ability interaction resolutions. Makes our REG look like a children's book. ;)
Just wanted to point that out.
Not only do I know about it, but I'm quite adept at using it. I wish Redemption had something that well written and comprehensive, I might be able to figure out obscure rules in Redemption without having to start a discussion on the boards.
-
Probably more than half of the cards we have created in the last few years have been designed from the Type 1 perspective. But they are tested in both Type 1 and Type 2 decks, and read with Type 2 in mind. I don't know where Isildur gets his idea that they are not tested in Type 2. Maybe its because the only playtester he is around very much (myself) prints physical copies of the playtest cards, and only tests those cards for Type 1. He can't possibly know that many of the other playtesters are testing these in Type 2 decks online. Just in the last couple days, we changed a card in the Early Church set based on Justin's view that it was too strong for Type 2.
As for sealed, Redemption has more than enough boosters available for Sealed and Booster Draft. When the number of available foil packs dwindles (and if Cactus can afford it), then maybe someday we can have a foil booster like Kings again, which has a good mix of cards from all brigades in the game. In the meantime, we will do what we can for Type 1 and Type 2.
As for the change to Type 2 deck building rules, I had been begging for that change ever since 2001 and the days of purple (Reach of Desperation/Great Faith/AoCp). It was a 2-step process, which began with the change from 1-per-20 (basically unlimited copies) to 5 max, and then (years later) to my original request, which was 4 max (which satisfied this math teacher's desire for Type 2 to be twice as concentrated as Type 1). It was not a reaction to poor Type 2 testing in any set.
The Type 2 playtesters have done a great job, and most people who have been around Redemption a long time agree that there is at least as much variety now in competitive Type 2 decks as there ever has been.
MJB83, the Hidden Treasures/Search combo didn't create a single archetype. It made Prophets a powerful, playable option. When new playable deck options are available, lots of people like to use them, since they are different/new. So they become quite popular. But after that tin had been out for about a year or so, we were back to at least as much variety as before, particularly around here and at nationals. And since then, interest in prophets have ebbed and flowed with the introduction of new cards.
-
I think you guys are doing a great job - Redemption is really fun, diverse, and challenging, and best of all, representing and upholding God's Word! :)
On the topic of prophets, dare I ask - is Elisha reprinted in green with a special ability in the new set? Maybe Elijah too? Also someone who I think is an awesome Biblical prophet is Micaiah from 1 Kings 22 - his character and story is just awesome!
-
MJB83, the Hidden Treasures/Search combo didn't create a single archetype.
Bryon, I am not sure how much T2-MP you played in the period between the release of Hidden Treasures/CBN Search (and to a lesser extent Naaman) in FoOF and the release of Nazareth with Disciples. What was a fairly wide open category with a large number of viable options prior to FoOF was replaced almost overnight with Green/Grey decks playing ANB Reset on offense and CBN searching on both sides. Heck it was so bad, John Early was even able to win Nationals with a deck like that. ;)
It made Prophets a powerful, playable option.
Yes it did, but the subsequent warping of the T2-MP meta pretty much forced the introduction of Nazareth. The existence of Nazareth then basically destroyed the viability of the "Green Prophets" archetype--the one no one had an issue with--in both T1 and T2 and threw all of the progress (that you point to) out the window.
This is precisely what I was referring to when it comes to having short memories or just an overall reluctance to admit when mistakes are made.
-
This is precisely what I was referring to when it comes to having short memories or just an overall reluctance to admit when mistakes are made.
Why admit that I made a mistake, when I can just say that you are mistaken? ;)
-
I don't know where Isildur gets his idea that they are not tested in Type 2. Maybe its because the only playtester he is around very much (myself) prints physical copies of the playtest cards, and only tests those cards for Type 1. He can't possibly know that many of the other playtesters are testing these in Type 2 decks online. Just in the last couple days, we changed a card in the Early Church set based on Justin's view that it was too strong for Type 2.
The Type 2 playtesters have done a great job, and most people who have been around Redemption a long time agree that there is at least as much variety now in competitive Type 2 decks as there ever has been.
I stand corrected! My views were based mostly off of when you guys first started testing online back in what TexP or Di? I wrongly assumed that because the same people from back in the day are testing new sets that Type II was still tested with the same infrequency. As you can see I haven't been testing much hahaha. ;D
Also don't get me wrong I wasn't trying to call out the playtesters or anything like that. My comment just snowballed a bit more then I anticipated.
-
Bryon, I am not sure how much T2-MP you played in the period between the release of Hidden Treasures/CBN Search (and to a lesser extent Naaman) in FoOF and the release of Nazareth with Disciples. What was a fairly wide open category with a large number of viable options prior to FoOF was replaced almost overnight with Green/Grey decks playing ANB Reset on offense and CBN searching on both sides. Heck it was so bad, John Early was even able to win Nationals with a deck like that. ;)
Search heavy T2 MP decks were used loooooooong before the CBN Search or Hidden Treasures came out...ya know, back in the day when T2 MP games didn't time out 2 out of every 3 games... ::)
And let's just be clear--Search and Hidden Treasures weren't the problem with ANB Reset decks...it was ANB :P
-
Aww. ANB was a great card to play when you were faced with a much more experienced player, who only needed 1 lost soul to win. Of course playing Mayhem the next turn (when of defense) might have ticked some ppl off :)
-
And let's just be clear--Search and Hidden Treasures weren't the problem with ANB Reset decks...it was ANB :P
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fm4.i.pbase.com%2Fg9%2F79%2F456379%2F2%2F151023174.t4tm5pbU.jpg&hash=9c92a702e20d420d20c14d0981441639c855ea05)
-
Bryon, I am not sure how much T2-MP you played in the period between the release of Hidden Treasures/CBN Search (and to a lesser extent Naaman) in FoOF and the release of Nazareth with Disciples. What was a fairly wide open category with a large number of viable options prior to FoOF was replaced almost overnight with Green/Grey decks playing ANB Reset on offense and CBN searching on both sides. Heck it was so bad, John Early was even able to win Nationals with a deck like that. ;)
Search heavy T2 MP decks were used loooooooong before the CBN Search or Hidden Treasures came out...ya know, back in the day when T2 MP games didn't time out 2 out of every 3 games... ::)
And let's just be clear--Search and Hidden Treasures weren't the problem with ANB Reset decks...it was ANB :P
My bad. I just plumb forgot that people played searching cards prior to FoOF and that ANB was out since Patriarchs.
It must have been a pure coincidence that at the MN T2-Only in the two years prior to FoOF coming out there was 1 player running a ANB reset deck in T2-MP, the next year half of the field was running the deck and the year after that the number was closer to 3/4. This switch can't have anything to do with the cards in FoOF providing for CBN searching on both offense and defense or Hidden Treasures ensuring that you could get your ANB or Search off without your opponent being able to do anything.
Yep, the whole trashing of the T2-MP meta and how it coincided with the release of FoOF was nothing but crazy random happenstance. Absolutely nothing to learn from here, folks.
-
Join us later today for a special webinar hosted by Rodney King, titled "Can't we all just get along?"
-
I think new brigades/themes are a good way to limit power creep in a game without casting costs or card pool restrictions, while still adding something new to test out, sort of like a new charater class in an MMO expansion.
-
Join us later today for a special webinar hosted by Rodney King, titled "Can't we all just get along?"
No need, I'm done now.
This entire argument is just so reminiscent of the year that was wasted where the majority of players complained that TGT was just broken while the elders and play testers didn't see any issue at all (Hey, just stick Self in Kingdoms. Problem resolved!).
-
No offence but the past 50 or so post are off topic. :P
-
No need, I'm done now.
Note that my comment was not targeted specifically at you. I agree with you in principle. I have chosen to accept the age-old saying:
"Denial is the highest form of flattery."
Oh, wait, that's not right.... :o
-
Yep, the whole trashing of the T2-MP meta and how it coincided with the release of FoOF was nothing but crazy random happenstance. Absolutely nothing to learn from here, folks.
I take full responsibility for not being around much during that time to encourage people to use more anti-ANB counters. :)
Maybe if you didn't make playing ANB decks look like so much fun, MJB...I knew better, but I know so many who fell for the cheery song and dance... ;)
I will never claim that every set is perfect, or that nothing ever falls through the cracks, but I guess I just disagree on how drastic the impact was of CBN Search and HT.
Furthermore, I miss having you for T2 MP...let me know if you ever want to borrow a deck for T2 MP and maybe I'll even put one copy of ANB in there just for you. :D
-
When you're on our side of 30, ANB decks ARE fun! We have more patience at our age so what's a little shuffling and game reset to us? ;)
As I think about it more, the anti-ANB movement seems more and more like the corporate game of pushing out the older generations...you know, forced retirement and such. :P Discrimination is a crime (now if only we had some proof). ;D
"Just call me Ramses everybody, 'cause I'm the Pharaoh of Denial..."