Author Topic: The problem of the Liner (or, the relevance of banning cards) (Read 19211 times)

Xonathan · « **Reply #50 on:** February 21, 2018, 02:12:18 PM »

This may have been said before but reprints of errata’d and “play as/old wording” cards is the direction I’d like to go. I like the idea that each unique card I own is an investment and could possibly seen used in future decks. That being said, I think a type ban would be great for competative players and maybe that category can have its own inclusive set rotation.

JonathanW · « **Reply #51 on:** February 21, 2018, 02:16:35 PM »

@h20tor: A Legacy format naturally follows transitioning to a set rotation system. I don't think anybody has laid out an all inclusive plan for when/how set rotation would happen, but rest assured a Legacy format is definitely a given when using set rotation.

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on February 21, 2018, 01:30:25 PM

Quote from: Kevinthedude on February 21, 2018, 10:34:05 AM
Quote from: EmJayBee83 on February 21, 2018, 10:27:08 AM
Seriously, what problem(s) are you (you == all the set rotation proponents) trying to solve?

Removing cards that are unhealthy (Mayhem), removing the cards that cause consistency creep and enable over powered decks (CoL), and removing cards that stifle design space (Throne).

There are a few other posts I've made that have a bit more detail on each of these points if you have questions.
None of these cards would be hit by rotation at the start because they are all post-Priests. If you want to maintain a viable, diverse card pool with one smallish set a year coming in you are looking at four or five years before any of these rotate out. If they are really a problem that need to be addressed now then ban them.

Quote from: tripleplayNa1 on February 21, 2018, 10:49:58 AM
Quote from: EmJayBee83 on February 21, 2018, 10:27:08 AM
If there are only 80 cards that even see play, why are you looking at set rotation?

This is the exact reason why these sets should be rotated out, whatever cards are useful in them use old wording/design and the rest of the undeniably useless cards have no reason to exist.
If the cards are *not* played, they are not a problem. If you don't want to play Angel Food or Bad Figs or ..., then don't play them. They cause absolutely zero harm being left in the card pool. So how many problems does the old wording/design of those "80" cards cause.

Like I said, set rotation is designed to fix a set of problems with *CG's. If those problems are not ones that currently plague Redemption, set rotation won't resolve them.

It doesn't matter if all of the benefits of rotating sets are seen at the moment it's implemented, even though cards like the 2/3 liner would be dealt with. What matters is setting up a sustainable system to phase out problem cards so we don't have to ban, errata, or change game rules to fix cards that are 12+ years old.

Whether we started rotating sets right now with a 1700+ card pool consisting of cards from tins-present or if we started it 4-5 years from now with a 1700+ card pool from I/J-(future)present it will ultimately prolong the sustainability of the game.

Just looking at what set rotation would do to fix broken cards, erratas, old wording, rule changes right now, at this moment, is missing the fact that set rotation is better for the longevity of the game and has to start somewhere.

In conjunction with erratas there are also cards with "Play as" abilities, of which there are 2,373. Not all of those cards are playable, and not all of them are major, but they are all cards that Say one thing, but either have old wording for common abilities, aren't specific in what they target, etc. Set rotation will reduce the number of cards that have these kind of problems.

Some cards from newer sets do have "Play as" abilities, but they are mostly limited to minor punctuation or wording errors. (Errors will always get through one way or another....)

I don't think we should get hung up on the fact that if we started rotating sets right now it wouldn't fix the major problem cards from Tins-FooF/RoA 2011. If we started by rotating out Original-Priests now Tins-FooF/RoA 2011 would be cycled out gradually in the next 4-5 years. If we started 4-5 years from now there would be enough new cards to rotate out everything Pre-I/J.

The Guardian · « **Reply #52 on:** February 21, 2018, 02:34:55 PM »

While I am in favor of retiring the oldest sets from competitive play at some point, I would not be in favor of cutting that many sets right off the bat (Priests and earlier or even everything pre-Priests). If my math is correct, cutting everything Priests and earlier takes over 1800 cards out of the card pool. I know that a majority of those cards are never used in open deck play, but there's still going to be hundreds of cards that are playable and get lost as a result.

If set retirement were implemented in the near future, I would prefer to start more gradually (say with the first 3 sets).

Crashfach2002 · « **Reply #53 on:** February 21, 2018, 02:42:27 PM »

Quote from: The Guardian on February 21, 2018, 02:34:55 PM

While I am in favor of retiring the oldest sets from competitive play at some point, I would not be in favor of cutting that many sets right off the bat (Priests and earlier or even everything pre-Priests). If my math is correct, cutting everything Priests and earlier takes over 1800 cards out of the card pool. I know that a majority of those cards are never used in open deck play, but there's still going to be hundreds of cards that are playable and get lost as a result.

If set retirement were implemented in the near future, I would prefer to start more gradually (say with the first 3 sets).

Anything done in this fashion would absolutely not be able to include Priests, as that would basically put an end to the priests themselves and hinder demons as well. I could easily see Pre-Kings. That would allow for each color to be represented well, and even eliminate several of the problem cards people are talking about (Liner, Haman's Plot, ANB).

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #54 on:** February 21, 2018, 02:47:30 PM »

Quote from: JonathanW on February 21, 2018, 02:16:35 PM

It doesn't matter if all of the benefits of rotating sets are seen at the moment it's implemented, even though a lot still would be (liners for example). What matters is setting up a system whereby we don't need to have the discussion of whether or not to ban, errata, or change game rules to fix cards that are 12+ years old, because of new cards/strategies/themes/metas that they conflict with.

Re-opening design space is a legitimate game design reason for having set rotation. So what new cards/strategies/themes/metas are the cards in Unlimited or Kings or Angel Wars or ... hindering? If anything I have seen the design team trying to come up with new ways to get the older cards to be *more* interactive rather than worrying about them causing issues.

Quote

Whether we started rotating sets right now with a 1700+ card pool going back to tins/priests or if we started it 4-5 years from now with a 1700+ card pool from I/J it will ultimately prolong the sustainability of the game.

Why? Given that Redemption--without set rotation--is now the second oldest CCG in existence, and that a goodly number of failed CCGs have had some form of set rotation, what evidence can you provide that this set rotation for Redemption will prolong the game's sustainability or longevity?

Quote from: The Guardian on February 21, 2018, 02:34:55 PM

While I am in favor of retiring the oldest sets from competitive play at some point...

Why?

Kevinthedude · « **Reply #55 on:** February 21, 2018, 02:53:59 PM »

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on February 21, 2018, 02:47:30 PM

Why?

You would greatly contribute to the discussion if you rebutted the people answering your "Why?" instead of simply repeating "Why?" ad nauseam.

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on February 21, 2018, 02:47:30 PM

Given that Redemption is now the second oldest CCG in existence

~~Where did you get this idea? It's untrue~~ (It actually is true) However, when looking at the results of set rotation, the size of the card pool is what matters not the number of years a game has existed.

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on February 21, 2018, 02:47:30 PM

What evidence can you provide that this set rotation for Redemption will prolong the game's sustainability or longevity?

In addition to all the reasons people having been throwing at you that you seem to be entirely ignoring, consistency creep is mathematically inevitable. The larger a card pool gets, the more consistent decks become across the board. The most consistent decks become, the easier it is to determine that one deck is objectively better than another. This means that as a card pool grows, decks become less diverse and individual games play out increasing similar to each other.

If you want an example, I present CoL. That deck does the exact same thing every single game and I have a higher personal win percentage with it in testing and tournaments that I have with any other deck. Using the final polished version of the deck, I did not lose a single game in testing prior to Nats or during all but one game of Iron Man at nats (Which was against almost the exact same deck). During the actual tournament I had 1 loss and 1 tie, both of which were lost because of exactly 1 objective misplay I made during each.

To back up that data, I am objectively not a top tier Redemption tournament player and normally hover around a 50% winrate at decent sized tournaments. The one and only reason CoL performs the way it does is because there are a critical mass of consistency cards in the game that allow the deck to literally pilot itself to victory the exact same ways every single game.

Even only rotating very old sets would lower the consistency of CoL (It runs one consistency piece each from Angel Wars and Kings) and rotating Priests would give the deck a meaningful weakness in the form of the loss of Ram's Horn, in addition to removing one of it's very important consistency Evil Characters (Sabbath Breaker).

NathanW · « **Reply #56 on:** February 21, 2018, 02:54:53 PM »

Quote from: The Guardian on February 21, 2018, 02:34:55 PM

While I am in favor of retiring the oldest sets from competitive play at some point, I would not be in favor of cutting that many sets right off the bat (Priests and earlier or even everything pre-Priests). If my math is correct, cutting everything Priests and earlier takes over 1800 cards out of the card pool. I know that a majority of those cards are never used in open deck play, but there's still going to be hundreds of cards that are playable and get lost as a result.

If set retirement were implemented in the near future, I would prefer to start more gradually (say with the first 3 sets).

I understand your viewpoint and I would like to lay out some numbers for everybody's reference.

unique cards from Original - Kings = 1325 (very few of which are worth reprinting)

unique cards from Original - Priests = 1927 (of which personally I think ~80-100 are worth reprinting)

unique cards from Tins (2007) - RoJ =1032

unique cards from Tins(2007) - TExP = 250

unique cards from Di -Tins(2011) = 175

unique cards from I/J - RoJ = 950

One possible solution to avoid one mass rotation of Original - Priests would be to make the change over the course of 4 years and every year create a small pack of perhaps 20 reprinted cards.

Quote from: Crashfach2002 on February 21, 2018, 02:42:27 PM

Quote from: The Guardian on February 21, 2018, 02:34:55 PM
While I am in favor of retiring the oldest sets from competitive play at some point, I would not be in favor of cutting that many sets right off the bat (Priests and earlier or even everything pre-Priests). If my math is correct, cutting everything Priests and earlier takes over 1800 cards out of the card pool. I know that a majority of those cards are never used in open deck play, but there's still going to be hundreds of cards that are playable and get lost as a result.

If set retirement were implemented in the near future, I would prefer to start more gradually (say with the first 3 sets).

Anything done in this fashion would absolutely not be able to include Priests, as that would basically put an end to the priests themselves and hinder demons as well. I could easily see Pre-Kings. That would allow for each color to be represented well, and even eliminate several of the problem cards people are talking about (Liner, Haman's Plot, ANB).

I totally agree that rotating out Original - Priests would have that effect which is why I attached a big IF to that idea.

Quote

I see no downside whatsoever to rotating out every set from priests and before IF a set is printed similar to a starter deck that gives players easy access to the cards from those sets that are playable because it will start the cycle of rotating sets and eventually lead to the rotation of sets with more problem cards.

h20tor · « **Reply #57 on:** February 21, 2018, 03:00:47 PM »

Quote from: tripleplayNa1 on February 21, 2018, 02:54:53 PM

One possible solution to avoid one mass rotation of Original - Priests would be to make the change over the course of 4 years and every year create a small pack of perhaps 20 reprinted cards.

I like this idea. Or kind of like Pokemon does, Champion deck reprints (or specific cards in our case).

So an old card could be updated and back into circulation (I know pokemon makes non-legal cards for these decks)

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #58 on:** February 21, 2018, 03:19:58 PM »

Quote from: Kevinthedude on February 21, 2018, 02:53:59 PM

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on February 21, 2018, 02:47:30 PM
Given that Redemption is now the second oldest CCG in existence
Where did you get this idea? It's completely untrue ...

Wait, what? What other CCGs have been active longer than MtG and Redemption?

The Guardian · « **Reply #59 on:** February 21, 2018, 03:21:19 PM »

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on February 21, 2018, 02:47:30 PM

Quote from: The Guardian on February 21, 2018, 02:34:55 PM
While I am in favor of retiring the oldest sets from competitive play at some point...
Why?

In order so that eventually we only have cards with proper and modern wording. For example it would be great to have a False Peace card that simply said "Take a card from deck" or a Dungeon of Malchiah that said "Capture a Hero to opponent's Land of Bondage."

Kevinthedude · « **Reply #60 on:** February 21, 2018, 03:25:09 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on February 21, 2018, 03:19:58 PM

Quote from: Kevinthedude on February 21, 2018, 02:53:59 PM
Quote from: EmJayBee83 on February 21, 2018, 02:47:30 PM
Given that Redemption is now the second oldest CCG in existence
Where did you get this idea? It's completely untrue ...

Wait, what? What other CCGs have been active longer than MtG and Redemption?

I just looked up a quick list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_collectible_card_games

I'll admit I didn't check the whole list for one that is still active but I would be surprised if every single game on there in between Redemption and Magic was dead.

I completely missed there was a column that specifies if they are inactive and they, in fact, all are and I am wrong. I should probably read my own sources better

NathanW · « **Reply #61 on:** February 21, 2018, 03:25:55 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on February 21, 2018, 03:19:58 PM

Quote from: Kevinthedude on February 21, 2018, 02:53:59 PM
Quote from: EmJayBee83 on February 21, 2018, 02:47:30 PM
Given that Redemption is now the second oldest CCG in existence
Where did you get this idea? It's completely untrue ...

Wait, what? What other CCGs have been active longer than MtG and Redemption?

There are quite a few but the most well-known one is MTG.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_collectible_card_games

MTG is the only still active ccg from pre-1995

And just saying that Redemption has survived this long without set rotation is not an argument against doing it now.

Spoiler (hover to show)

The Guardian · « **Reply #62 on:** February 21, 2018, 03:29:21 PM »

I believe you misunderstood MJB...he was referring to card games still being produced ("active"). Redemption is the second longest running card game (after MtG, which MJB said).

Ironisaac · « **Reply #63 on:** February 21, 2018, 03:29:57 PM »

Quote from: tripleplayNa1 on February 21, 2018, 03:25:55 PM

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on February 21, 2018, 03:19:58 PM
Quote from: Kevinthedude on February 21, 2018, 02:53:59 PM
Quote from: EmJayBee83 on February 21, 2018, 02:47:30 PM
Given that Redemption is now the second oldest CCG in existence
Where did you get this idea? It's completely untrue ...

Wait, what? What other CCGs have been active longer than MtG and Redemption?

There are quite a few but the most well-known one is MTG.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_collectible_card_games

MTG is the only still active ccg from pre-1995

Spoiler (hover to show)
Magic: The Gathering   1993   Wizards of the Coast   Yes
Dark Force   1994   Schmidt Spiele   No
Dixie   1994   Columbia Games   No
Flights of Fantasy [1]   1994   Destini Productions Inc.   No
Galactic Empires   1994   Companion Games   No
Illuminati: New World Order   1994   Steve Jackson Games   No
Jyhad (AKA Vampire: The Eternal Struggle)   1994   Wizards of the Coast/White Wolf Publishing, Inc.   No
On the Edge   1994   Atlas Games   No
Spellfire   1994   TSR   No
Star Trek Customizable Card Game   1994   Decipher, Inc.   No
Super Deck! [1]   1994   Card Sharks, Inc.   No
Banemaster: The Adventure [1]   1995   Chessex   No
Battlelords   1995   New Millennium Entertainment   No
Blood Wars   1995   TSR   No
Champions [46]   1995   F.X. Schmid/Gibsons Games   No
The Crow [1]   1995   Target Games/Heartbreaker Hobbies   No
Doomtrooper [64]   1995   Target Games   No
The Dragon's Wrath [1]   1995   Naipes Heraclio Fournier   No
Eagles [1]   1995   Columbia Games   No
Echelons of Fire [1]   1995   Medallion Simulations   No
Echelons of Fury [1]   1995   Medallion Simulations   No
Gridiron Fantasy Football   1995   Upper Deck Company   No
Guardians   1995   FPG, Inc.   No
Hatalom Kártyái Kártyajáték (AKA Power Cards Card Game) [97]   1995   Beholder?   Yes?
Heresy: Kingdom Come   1995   Last Unicorn Games   No
Highlander: The Card Game   1995   Thunder Castle Games   No
Hyborian Gates [1]   1995   CARDZ   No
James Bond 007 Collectible Card Game [1]   1995   Target Games/Heartbreaker Hobbies   No
Ken il Guerriero: Gioco di Carte Collezionabili [110][111]   1995   Alchemia   No
Kult [1]   1995   Target Games/Heartbreaker Hobbies   No
The Last Crusade   1995   Pinnacle Entertainment Group   No
Legend of the Five Rings [118]   1995   Five Rings Publishing Group/Wizards of the Coast/AEG   No
Middle-earth Collectible Card Game   1995   Iron Crown Enterprises   No
Monster Magic [1]   1995   Trio Toys   No
OverPower   1995   Fleer   No
PowerCardz [1]   1995   Caliber Games Systems   No
Quest for the Grail [1]   1995   Stone Ring Games/Horizon Games   No
Rage   1995   White Wolf Publishing   No
Red Zone [1]   1995   Donruss   No

It should be noted that a few of those still have an active player base, but there are no official sets being released any more, and no official tournaments, but there are unofficial tournaments, going all the way to the national level for some "dead" games, as recently as 2016. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_Customizable_Card_Game

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #64 on:** February 21, 2018, 03:31:19 PM »

Quote from: Kevinthedude on February 21, 2018, 02:53:59 PM

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on February 21, 2018, 02:47:30 PM
Why?

You would greatly contribute to the discussion if you rebutted the people answering your "Why?" instead of simply repeating "Why?" ad nauseam.

You mean I should simply make a bald assertion of my own with no support at all? OK... Having set rotation would cause Redemption to falter and fail. Whoo-hoo!

Seriously, I don't see how simply throwing out unsupported assertions really advances the discussion. Nor do I understand why asking people to provide support for their claims is too much to ask for.

Unless you are complaining that I simply asked The Guardian, "Why?" That was an expression of interest in hearing more about the reasons behind his opinion since I find it slightly at odds with his other posts on this thread, and I respect his insight.

Quote from: Kevinthedude on February 21, 2018, 02:53:59 PM

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on February 21, 2018, 02:47:30 PM
Given that Redemption is now the second oldest CCG in existence

Where did you get this idea?

~~You have MtG and... Huh, I can't think of any other active CCG that has been around as long as Redemption. Which ones do you think have been around longer?~~

Sorry, didn't read the intervening posts. I was indeed talking about active CCGs--of which Redemption is now the second oldest.

Kevinthedude · « **Reply #65 on:** February 21, 2018, 03:33:23 PM »

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on February 21, 2018, 03:31:19 PM

Seriously, I don't see how simply throwing out unsupported assertions really advances the discussion. Nor do I understand why asking people to provide support for their claims is too much to ask for.

Unless you are complaining that I simply asked The Guardian, "Why?" That was an expression of interest in hearing more about the reasons behind his opinion since I find it slightly at odds with his other posts on this thread, and I respect his insight.

I'm not complaining that you are asking for support, I'm claiming that you are ignoring all of the support I have offered you.

For starters, what is your opinion of the mathematical inevitability of consistency creep sans rotation and the specific example of how it is already plaguing Redemption in the form of the CoL deck?

NathanW · « **Reply #66 on:** February 21, 2018, 03:35:05 PM »

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on February 21, 2018, 03:31:19 PM

You have MtG and... Huh, I can't think of any other active CCG that has been around as long as Redemption. Which ones do you think have been around longer?

Can we just be clear that you are talking about TCGs that are being currently produced by the original publisher.

Because there are plenty of TCGs that you could consider to have "been around" before Redemption besides MTG.

:EDIT:

Quote from: EmJayBee83

~~You have MtG and... Huh, I can't think of any other active CCG that has been around as long as Redemption. Which ones do you think have been around longer?~~

Sorry, didn't read the intervening posts. I was indeed talking about active CCGs--of which Redemption is now the second oldest.

yup we are all in agreement on that point now

The Guardian · « **Reply #67 on:** February 21, 2018, 03:37:18 PM »

Quote from: tripleplayNa1 on February 21, 2018, 03:35:05 PM

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on February 21, 2018, 03:31:19 PM
You have MtG and... Huh, I can't think of any other active CCG that has been around as long as Redemption. Which ones do you think have been around longer?

Can we just be clear that you are talking about TCGs that are being currently produced by the original publisher.

Because there are plenty of TCGs that you could consider to have "been around" before Redemption besides MTG.

I think we're all in agreement on this point.

Ironisaac · « **Reply #68 on:** February 21, 2018, 03:40:47 PM »

Quote from: The Guardian on February 21, 2018, 03:37:18 PM

Quote from: tripleplayNa1 on February 21, 2018, 03:35:05 PM
Quote from: EmJayBee83 on February 21, 2018, 03:31:19 PM
You have MtG and... Huh, I can't think of any other active CCG that has been around as long as Redemption. Which ones do you think have been around longer?

Can we just be clear that you are talking about TCGs that are being currently produced by the original publisher.

Because there are plenty of TCGs that you could consider to have "been around" before Redemption besides MTG.

I think we're all in agreement on this point.

Yeah, but ours is still the best though, that's the main point to take away from this.

NathanW · « **Reply #69 on:** February 21, 2018, 03:41:43 PM »

Quote from: Ironisaac on February 21, 2018, 03:40:47 PM

Quote from: The Guardian on February 21, 2018, 03:37:18 PM
Quote from: tripleplayNa1 on February 21, 2018, 03:35:05 PM
Quote from: EmJayBee83 on February 21, 2018, 03:31:19 PM
You have MtG and... Huh, I can't think of any other active CCG that has been around as long as Redemption. Which ones do you think have been around longer?

Can we just be clear that you are talking about TCGs that are being currently produced by the original publisher.

Because there are plenty of TCGs that you could consider to have "been around" before Redemption besides MTG.

I think we're all in agreement on this point.

Yeah, but ours is still the best though, that's the main point to take away from this.

depends what you define "best" as but in a very loose way I could see that

I do think we have gotten off topic of even the topic that extended from the original topic though.

The Guardian · « **Reply #70 on:** February 21, 2018, 03:42:44 PM »

Quote

For starters, what is your opinion of the mathematical inevitability of consistency creep sans rotation and the specific example of how it is already plaguing Redemption in the form of the CoL deck?

I have some thoughts on this, but I think it should be it own discussion. We're starting to stray pretty far from the original topic. I know things are inter-connected (ban list/rotation/power creep/consistency creep), but we should probably circle back to the Liner topic.

Red Wing · « **Reply #71 on:** February 21, 2018, 03:44:00 PM »

TLDR: yes get rid of Liner

NathanW · « **Reply #72 on:** February 21, 2018, 03:45:00 PM »

So far as the Liner is concerned if the first few sets were rotated out soon it wouldn't be a problem and we wouldn't have to talk about banning it. But there is no reason imo to not ban it now either way.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #73 on:** February 21, 2018, 03:45:59 PM »

That was actually a fun deviation. We should do that more often.

Back on topic, I just want it to be stated that I am opposed to banning cards, and I do not support set rotations. I will not be posting any dissertations, nor will I provide formal argument procedures. I just don't like the idea and I'm grumpy.

NathanW · « **Reply #74 on:** February 21, 2018, 03:49:15 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on February 21, 2018, 03:45:59 PM

That was actually a fun deviation. We should do that more often.

Back on topic, I just want it to be stated that I am opposed to banning cards, and I do not support set rotations. I will not be posting any dissertations, nor will I provide formal argument procedures. I just don't like the idea and I'm grumpy.

I don't want to seem rude but that kind of stats-quo thinking isn't gonna solve any problems

News:

Author Topic: The problem of the Liner (or, the relevance of banning cards) (Read 19211 times)