Cactus Game Design Message Boards

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

LOL. You really can't see through my tongue-in-cheek words to get to my main point? This isn't about comfort. It's about not being able to play because my deck is not legal. Why should I have to shell out hundreds of dollars to play Redemption when I already have thousands of cards?

Inconsistent wording, erratas to change how cards fundamentally work, the complexity of the game rising and rising, power creep, constantly printing counters to broken meta strategies makes casual play a chore. I don't think it's asking much to say only the last 10-12 years of sets can be used in a competition setting. That means any card you acquired in the last 10-12 years is legal for tournament play. Don't increase the frequency of sets, don't make the rotation like 2-4 years, don't continue to make OP Ultra rares that are essential in every deck and there's no additional money required to play competitively and enjoy the game.

I'm sorry, I just don't see the argument...

on a side note: I generally enjoy every game I lose, unless it's against CoL....

Quote from: tripleplayNa1 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?

LOL. You really can't see through my tongue-in-cheek words to get to my main point? This isn't about comfort. It's about not being able to play because my deck is not legal. Why should I have to shell out hundreds of dollars to play Redemption when I already have thousands of cards?

Let me be more specific.

I think bad reasoning for not rotating sets for the betterment of competitive tournament play would be because we wouldn't want casual players to need to keep their decks up-to date and legal to a minimum extent (as far as using cards from legal sets) to play in official ranked tournaments. (nothing against casual players btw)

And I have to admit that there is a blurry line between "casual" and "competitive" play in tournaments. But again if the only reason to not do something that improves the competitive side is because the casual side is affected I do not think that is a good thing to do.

Quote from: Red Wing on February 21, 2018, 04:06:05 PM

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

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.

After TGT* came Thaddeus.  After Thaddeus came AUtO.  Are you saying that you believe that nothing will replace CoL?

*TGT was no longer the dominant deck well before the ignore ruling?

A. I don't believe any of those cards are even comparable to CoL except maybe AUtO and even that isn't close because AUtO only affects one offense while CoL can leverage almost any card regardless of brigade or even alignment.
B. Those cards got replaced because of power creep. Recent sets have hit the desired power level the designs want and thus there will no longer be intentional power creep (I assume so since I have faith in the card designers), so no, I do not believe anything with replace CoL unless it is actively nerfed in some way. If ignored it will get stronger over time, not weaker.

Quote from: Kevinthedude on February 21, 2018, 05:25:41 PM

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on February 21, 2018, 05:20:52 PM

After TGT* came Thaddeus.  After Thaddeus came AUtO.  Are you saying that you believe that nothing will replace CoL?

A. I don't believe any of those cards are even comparable to CoL except maybe AUtO and even that isn't close because it only affects one offense.

From a historical perspective, TGT makes CoL look like a piker, in that it almost destroyed the game single-handedly. For two plus years the *only* deck you could play that had a chance to win was TGT.

Quote from: Kevinthedude on February 21, 2018, 05:25:41 PM

B. Those cards got replaced because of power creep. Recent sets have hit the desired power level the designs want and thus there will no longer be intentional power creep (I assume so since I have faith in the card designers), so no, I do not believe anything with replace CoL unless it is actively nerfed in some way. If ignored it will get stronger over time, not weaker.

OK.

I'm old enough to remember those days, but CoL is definitely worse.

That's a nice sentiment but entirely irrelevant to this discussion.

It's good to know that you can dismiss me so quickly. It definitely keeps the argument shorter. 

But again if the only reason to not do something that improves the competitive side is because the casual side is affected I do not think that is a good thing to do.

Likewise, let's not concern ourselves with those silly casual players player YMT.

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

FWIW, I do realize that my opinion is in the vast minority, and I'm fine with that. I admit that I am concerned with the general sentiment that the minority doesn't deserve the same voice as the competitive majority. If the goal is to be just like Magic the Gathering, then we are just about there. Congratulations.

Quote from: tripleplayNa1 on February 21, 2018, 04:43:22 PM

But again if the only reason to not do something that improves the competitive side is because the casual side is affected I do not think that is a good thing to do.

Likewise, let's not concern ourselves with those silly casual players player YMT.

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

FWIW, I do realize that my opinion is in the vast minority, and I'm fine with that. I admit that I am concerned with the general sentiment that the minority doesn't deserve the same voice as the competitive majority. If the goal is to be just like Magic the Gathering, then we are just about there. Congratulations.

Set rotation, bans, and the like are for tournaments. Tournaments are primarily for competitive players. Therefore, options that favor the competitive playerbase are more important when deciding policies on set rotation bans, and the like.

This is not the same thing as saying casual players are not an important part of the Redemption community nor does it have anything to do with Magic: The Gathering.

Quote from: Kevinthedude on February 21, 2018, 07:18:21 PM

Tournaments are primarily for competitive players.

But not only for competitive players. Almost all of my tournaments were for young players at my school. Kids get so excited about playing in an official tournament. They love getting the free promo, and taking part in something beyond just Game Club. Casual players enjoy the thrill of the tournament just the same as competitive players. The difference is that the casual player can leave a tournament having lost all their games and still be giddy because they got to be in an official tournament.

Quote from: Kevinthedude on February 21, 2018, 07:18:21 PM

Therefore, options that favor the competitive playerbase are more important...

That's your biased opinion, because you are a competitive player. I happen to disagree. Of course, I'm biased too. 

Quote from: Kevinthedude on February 21, 2018, 07:18:21 PM

This is not the same thing as saying casual players are not an important part of the Redemption community

Read as "You can play at home all you want, just don't come to our tournaments because we're super serious! 

Quote from: Kevinthedude on February 21, 2018, 07:18:21 PM

... nor does it have anything to do with Magic: The Gathering.

It does actually, since catering only to the competitive players creates an atmosphere where winning is everything. This, in turn, leads to a feeling that winning at all costs seems worth the risk, especially when lucrative prizes are on the line.

However, I was actually referring to JonathanW's post about being like the other TCGs. 

It  honestly sounds like you're saying rotating sets would make it impossible for casual players to participate in tournaments....

Which isn't the case at all for reasons already stated.

1. The cost of staying recent in the game will stay the same
2. The card pool will probably go back 10-12 years (not 2-4 like other TCGs)
3. Cards that cause headaches and loads of pulling questions as they are cycled out and their mistakes are taken into account in future sets.

My evidence to that is that not only did CoL win Nats but every proper CoL deck placed higher than every non CoL deck. If that isn't dominance I don't know what is.

That's one of the points I wanted to address in my "dissertation." I am going to keep it short for now because I have homework I've been putting off.

The CoL deck is crazy good--there's no questioning that. However, looking at the top of the Nationals leaderboard, I posit that this year's tournament also had a lot to do with the experience certain players had with the new cards and their own decks.

You (Josh) and JD spent hours and hours refining and testing the CoL deck.
I don't know how many games Josiah tested the exact deck he used, but I know he's used that style before and I know he spent a lot of time with his brother going over every card.
Josh K probably went to more tournaments than anyone last year, refined the White/Brown deck better than anyone, and he came within one rushed play of beating JD.
Jacob A was the main person you tested against so he had tons of experience playing against CoL and I'm assuming had a deck ready to face it.
Brian J plays a lot of games in person and Jay played a lot online last year so both of them were very familiar with the new set. I'm not sure how prepared Brian was for CoL, but I know Jay was.

Was it coincidence that the top two decks were CoL? No probably not. However, it was also not a coincidence that the top two players were among the leaders in "test games played" from the time RoJ released until Nationals.

Set rotation wouldn’t make your students cards unplayable, they simply wouldn’t be able to bring their decks to official competitive tournaments. You can still play for fun and hold unofficial tournaments to your heart’s content.

So again (as stated in my other post), my students do not get to have promos and the satisfaction of playing in an official tournament, which would make their semester. I will never support such a brush off of my students.

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on February 21, 2018, 08:13:38 PM

Quote from: Kevinthedude on February 21, 2018, 08:10:59 PM

Set rotation wouldn’t make your students cards unplayable, they simply wouldn’t be able to bring their decks to official competitive tournaments. You can still play for fun and hold unofficial tournaments to your heart’s content.

So again (as stated in my other post), my students do not get to have promos and the satisfaction of playing in an official tournament, which would make their semester. I will never support such a brush off of my students.

What if, at the local and district level, Cactus let the tournament organizer specify whether the tournament they were holding was using a "legacy" or standard format for constructed events to that the big competitive tournaments could be standardized around the competitive format while smaller tournaments could decide for themselves based on their playground and still be official and receive promos either way?

I was starting to type a suggestion like you've laid out, but Im on my phone at the moment lol... Yeah, even if it's not an option to do legacy or standard, just do both. I kind of see "legacy" format being a modifier to standard deck building rules that simply removes the restriction of what sets you can use cards from. Whether or not you legacy versions of categories will depend entirely on the people who come to the tournament and what they want.

As Redemption is uniquely based on the Bible, I believe that fellowship and witnessing should always be the primary factors to consider when making such important decisions as we're discussing.

I really like that all the cards in the game are legal and hope that it will always be that way (although I would be ok with a select very very few cards being banned if they were deemed detrimental enough to the game). Each card represents a Bible character, event, etc. and therefore is special and that's why I want them all to remain part of the game. Even if a particular card isn't likely to be included in a deck, it still represents something important because it's from the Bible and that's what this game ultimately is about.

If each of the seldom-played cards were to reprinted with an upgraded special ability, that would be really cool, but I don't know how realistic that is at this point.

I agree with your base philosophy "...Fellowship and witnessing should always be the primary factors to consider when making such important decisions as we're discussing."

However, I think it would benefit the witness of the game immensely if every card was given the chance to be played, not just "exist" as over 2 thousand cards do now. (and by "card" I mean the character/event/object/etc on the cards). Right now we're missing out on the wealth of witness potential in the 80% of redemption cards that will never see the light (quite literally actually). The only way they get attention is when they're used in a project like your book with every card sorted by reference, which is awesome, but those cards have so much more potential....

Or we could just do this...