Author Topic: The problem of the Liner (or, the relevance of banning cards) (Read 19154 times)

Kevinthedude · « **Reply #75 on:** February 21, 2018, 03:49:47 PM »

Quote from: The Guardian 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.

As you wish: http://www.cactusforums.com/redemption-card-play/positive-and-negative-effects-of-set-rotation/

Red Wing · « **Reply #76 on:** February 21, 2018, 03:50:43 PM »

Quote from: Kevinthedude on February 21, 2018, 03:49:47 PM

Quote from: The Guardian 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.

As you wish: http://www.cactusforums.com/redemption-card-play/positive-and-negative-effects-of-set-rotation/

Hyper link for u lazy scrubz

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #77 on:** February 21, 2018, 03:51:28 PM »

Quote from: tripleplayNa1 on February 21, 2018, 03:49:15 PM

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

No offense taken.

I don't see the Liner as a problem. It's been around since the very first set and it will be fine for 23 more years.

NathanW · « **Reply #78 on:** February 21, 2018, 03:53:11 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on February 21, 2018, 03:51:28 PM

Quote from: tripleplayNa1 on February 21, 2018, 03:49:15 PM
I don't want to seem rude but that kind of stats-quo thinking isn't gonna solve any problems

No offense taken.

I don't see the Liner as a problem. It's been around since the very first set and it will be fine for 23 more years.

And it has been causing problems for 23 years as well.

It would be genuinely helpful to know the actual initial intent of the card.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #79 on:** February 21, 2018, 03:53:46 PM »

Quote from: tripleplayNa1 on February 21, 2018, 03:53:11 PM

And it has been causing problems for 23 years as well.

And yet we're still here...

Sadness · « **Reply #80 on:** February 21, 2018, 03:56:10 PM »

Here's my 1 idea.

1) See if at Nats 2018, if we could retire the 2-3 liner for a year, see if that could work. Might make deck building more of a challenge short term.

Of the original thru priests sets, what cards have not been re-printed?
Also could we re-print some of the old promo cards as well?

As far as Redemption ccg being the second oldest ccg still around....I know MtG and Pokemon have also been here since the 90's too.

The Guardian · « **Reply #81 on:** February 21, 2018, 03:57:20 PM »

Sorry, I should have been more specific that I was referring to the CoL specifically. I started writing about before deciding it was going to be way off track.

As YMT said, if someone doesn't think there is a problem, they shouldn't be expected to provide solutions and there's nothing wrong with that.

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #82 on:** February 21, 2018, 03:58:42 PM »

Quote from: Kevinthedude on February 21, 2018, 03:33:23 PM

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 believe arguments about mathematics need to be shown to have a relation to reality. I look at the CoL deck list from Nats and I see few cards that would be rotated out (under the proposals here), and the ones that would are not the real culprits. Looking at the deck it also seems to me that CoL is the card that is way above the curve, and one that should not have been printed knowing nothing more than what was in the set immediately before.

Since you disagree, please explain to me how any of the proposed set rotation schems would make the CoL deck less OP. Please do not, however, put forward the claim that it will help things in four or five years, unless you can show that CoL will still be a problem in four or five years. Back in the day TGT was a similar above-curve card. It seriously warped the meta for over two years. Nowadays no one seems to have much of a problem with it. By the time CoL would rotate out (under any of the proposals here), it too will most likely be an after thought in the meta.

Quote from: Sadness on February 21, 2018, 03:56:10 PM

As far as Redemption ccg being the second oldest ccg still around....I know MtG and Pokemon have also been here since the 90's too.

MtG was the oldest at 1993. The first wave appeared in 1994-1995, of which Redemption is the only survivor. Pokemon was 1999.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #83 on:** February 21, 2018, 04:00:47 PM »

Quote from: Sadness on February 21, 2018, 03:56:10 PM

As far as Redemption ccg being the second oldest ccg still around....I know MtG and Pokemon have also been here since the 90's too.

Pokemon started in 1999, I believe.

---------------------

I know that the Liner is frustrating, but it is a two-way street. I remember plenty of games where if I did not have my Liner out, the game would have ended before I could set up my defense. Everyone has their own pet peeves, but banning is not the answer.

Kevinthedude · « **Reply #84 on:** February 21, 2018, 04:01:02 PM »

Quote from: The Guardian on February 21, 2018, 03:57:20 PM

Sorry, I should have been more specific that I was referring to the CoL specifically. I started writing about before deciding it was going to be way off track.

I am very interested to hear what you were writing over here

The Guardian · « **Reply #85 on:** February 21, 2018, 04:01:33 PM »

Quote

It would be genuinely helpful to know the actual initial intent of the card.

If you think of the card pool that was available at the time, there were no "autoblocks" besides Christian Martyr. Therefore a card like Liner could help a player extend the game by another turn (unless his opponent was wise enough to hold onto Son of God). I wasn't around at the very beginning, but that's my educated guess on the thinking behind the Liner.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #86 on:** February 21, 2018, 04:03:10 PM »

Quote from: The Guardian on February 21, 2018, 04:01:33 PM

Quote
It would be genuinely helpful to know the actual initial intent of the card.

If you think of the card pool that was available at the time, there were no "autoblocks" besides Christian Martyr. Therefore a card like Liner could help a player extend the game by another turn (unless his opponent was wise enough to hold onto Son of God). I wasn't around at the very beginning, but that's my educated guess on the thinking behind the Liner.

I concur. A stall technique to buy time for building defense.

The Guardian · « **Reply #87 on:** February 21, 2018, 04:04:17 PM »

Quote from: Kevinthedude on February 21, 2018, 04:01:02 PM

Quote from: The Guardian on February 21, 2018, 03:57:20 PM
Sorry, I should have been more specific that I was referring to the CoL specifically. I started writing about before deciding it was going to be way off track.

I am very interested to hear what you were writing over here

I'll get to that when I'm home from work. That's going to take longer than a few minutes.

Red Wing · « **Reply #88 on:** February 21, 2018, 04:06:05 PM »

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on February 21, 2018, 03:58:42 PM

Quote from: Kevinthedude on February 21, 2018, 03:33:23 PM
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 believe arguments about mathematics need to be shown to have a relation to reality. I look at the CoL deck list from Nats and I see few cards that would be rotated out (under the proposals here), and the ones that would are not the real culprits. Looking at the deck it also seems to me that CoL is the card that is way above the curve, and one that should not have been printed knowing nothing more than what was in the set immediately before.

Since you disagree, please explain to me how any of the proposed set rotation schems would make the CoL deck less OP. Please do not, however, put forward the claim that it will help things in four or five years, unless you can show that CoL will still be a problem in four or five years. Back in the day TGT was a similar above-curve card. It seriously warped the meta for over two years. Nowadays no one seems to have much of a problem with it. By the time CoL would rotate out (under any of the proposals here), it too will most likely be an after thought in the meta.

TGT was phased out of the meta because of a significant rule change, several years of printed counters and a massive amount of power creep.

JonathanW · « **Reply #89 on:** February 21, 2018, 04:08:49 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on February 21, 2018, 03:53:46 PM

Quote from: tripleplayNa1 on February 21, 2018, 03:53:11 PM
And it has been causing problems for 23 years as well.

And yet we're still here...

I'm gonna be honest. Really the only reason I still enjoy Redemption is because of the community. If it wasn't for all the awesome people here I would have given up on Redemption long ago... All of the rule changes, inconsistent wording, erratas to change how cards fundamentally work, the complexity of the game rising and rising, power creep (since every new card has to take the place of another one in your deck), constantly printing counters to broken meta strategies. All of this compounded gets rather frustrating.

Every set after I/J has addressed all of these problems and I thank Gabe and the rest of the elder/playresting team for their efforts, but the problem of all the "baggage" from when the game transitioned from "numbers and colors" to the game we all know and love today is, imho, dragging the whole game down.

The biggest reason I want this game to succeed and grow is so that I can continue to fellwoship with this wonderful community as it grows.

Every other major TCG uses set rotation to avoid the problems I mentioned above and that's why I'm for it. It' proven. It works. At the very least we should discuss in more detail what a set rotation transition would look like (to completion) and then, and only then, weigh the pros and cons. We're getting little bits and pieces here and there, but I think it would benefit us all to see an actual proposal hit the table.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #90 on:** February 21, 2018, 04:15:23 PM »

Quote from: JonathanW on February 21, 2018, 04:08:49 PM

Every other major TCG uses set rotation to avoid the problems I mentioned above and that's why I'm for it.

I don't feel that Redemption's goal should be to mirror other TCGs. The obvious other reason that companies use set rotation is to make more money. If you don't buy the newest cards, then you don't play. I have no problem with a "Legacy" type format, but I have found that those formats are not present at the local tournaments in my area, which once again limits my participation. For Redemption, if a host holds both formats, but I'm the only one that brought a Legacy deck, then I'm out. I do not support this option.

Red Wing · « **Reply #91 on:** February 21, 2018, 04:17:21 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on February 21, 2018, 04:03:10 PM

Quote from: The Guardian on February 21, 2018, 04:01:33 PM
Quote
It would be genuinely helpful to know the actual initial intent of the card.

If you think of the card pool that was available at the time, there were no "autoblocks" besides Christian Martyr. Therefore a card like Liner could help a player extend the game by another turn (unless his opponent was wise enough to hold onto Son of God). I wasn't around at the very beginning, but that's my educated guess on the thinking behind the Liner.

I concur. A stall technique to buy time for building defense.

This is exactly why Liner shouldn't be a thing anymore. Defenses nowadays have plenty of powerful options without a free block.

Quote

If you don't buy the newest cards, then you don't play.

If you don't have the newest cards you won't be very competitive even without rotation.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #92 on:** February 21, 2018, 04:19:27 PM »

Quote from: Red Wing on February 21, 2018, 04:17:21 PM

If you don't have the newest cards you won't be very competitive even without rotation.

I have no problem losing. I'm actually quite good at it. But not being able to play at all will make me grumpy(er).

NathanW · « **Reply #93 on:** February 21, 2018, 04:21:31 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on February 21, 2018, 04:15:23 PM

Quote from: JonathanW on February 21, 2018, 04:08:49 PM
Every other major TCG uses set rotation to avoid the problems I mentioned above and that's why I'm for it.

I don't feel that Redemption's goal should be to mirror other TCGs. The obvious other reason that companies use set rotation is to make more money. If you don't buy the newest cards, then you don't play. ...

Well the goal would not be to make more money but to solve the problems listed above.

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on February 21, 2018, 04:15:23 PM

I have no problem with a "Legacy" type format, but I have found that those formats are not present at the local tournaments in my area, which once again limits my participation.

I am not aware of Redemption offering a "legacy" type format currently.

JonathanW · « **Reply #94 on:** February 21, 2018, 04:21:48 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on February 21, 2018, 04:15:23 PM

Quote from: JonathanW on February 21, 2018, 04:08:49 PM
Every other major TCG uses set rotation to avoid the problems I mentioned above and that's why I'm for it.

I don't feel that Redemption's goal should be to mirror other TCGs. The obvious other reason that companies use set rotation is to make more money. If you don't buy the newest cards, then you don't play. I have no problem with a "Legacy" type format, but I have found that those formats are not present at the local tournaments in my area, which once again limits my participation. For Redemption, if a host holds both formats, but I'm the only one that brought a Legacy deck, then I'm out. I do not support this option.

Other TCGs make more money off of it because of the frequency of their set releases. Redemption can keep the same ~150 card yearly set releases and still do set rotation to phase out ancient cards. As for legacy formats. Yes, I agree you won't see them at many district or below tournaments.

If Redemption did set rotations you'll have ~12 sets of cards to work with. Not like magic or Pokemon where (I believe) their rotations are more like 2-4 years. Why can't we take the best from tried and proven TCGs and add it to the uniqueness of Redemption?

The Schaefer · « **Reply #95 on:** February 21, 2018, 04:22:26 PM »

Normally I would be against set rotation but I would be for it if and only if older cards were reprinted in core or vintage set that would be legal. Effectively it would work the same as a ban list by omitting reprints of problematic cards. With rotation if you made it to where only cards thay werent reprinted were illegal it would allow the older cards that were reprinted to be played as well. The reprints with updated wording and formatting would also be good since many people have been looking for something like that. However this is not an easy suggestion and functionally is just a ban list but it offers a starting point towards moving towards set rotation potentially and in theory should produce sales. Whether the overall cost and effort is worth it is a different matter, but it would be a balanced way to update old cards and eliminate problem ones.

I'm not saying we should do this but it's the only way I could foresee being ok with set rotation. I'd be more inclined to see a ban list first then move towards set rotation via something like I described.

Red Wing · « **Reply #96 on:** February 21, 2018, 04:23:34 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on February 21, 2018, 04:19:27 PM

I have no problem losing.

Then you are in the minority. There is a reason we keep score and have tournaments that determine winners and losers.

NathanW · « **Reply #97 on:** February 21, 2018, 04:24:20 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on February 21, 2018, 04:19:27 PM

Quote from: Red Wing on February 21, 2018, 04:17:21 PM
If you don't have the newest cards you won't be very competitive even without rotation.

I have no problem losing. I'm actually quite good at it. But not being able to play at all will make me grumpy(er).

Has Redemption come to a point where you can't play a casual game outside of going to a tournament and playing competitively? If so that is truly sad....

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #98 on:** February 21, 2018, 04:27:21 PM »

I think you guys missed my point, which was about being able to play versus not being able to play (in sanctioned tournaments). I hate to break it to you, but there can only be one winner. The rest all lose at some point, so I think we all lose plenty of times.

NathanW · « **Reply #99 on:** February 21, 2018, 04:28:16 PM »

Yes, but should competitive play be sacrificed in the long run because we want casual players to be comfortable in a competitive tournament setting?

perhaps I am misunderstanding what you are saying.

News:

Author Topic: The problem of the Liner (or, the relevance of banning cards) (Read 19154 times)