Author Topic: Simplicity or Balance? (Read 31773 times)

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #200 on:** October 15, 2011, 07:55:05 PM »

Quote from: SomeKittens on October 15, 2011, 05:31:36 PM

I'm frustrated with the lack of response from the people arguing the other side, thus my negativity.

You are always in control of your responses to life's frustrations. Choose wisely.

Quote from: SomeKittens on October 15, 2011, 05:31:36 PM

However, what does that have to do with the rule change?

If we are ever going to make significant rule changes (both this and the ignore rule are significant), then now is the time. Starter Decks include the very important new rulebook. New players will have no prior knowledge of the rules that we take for granted. They will do what the rulebook says. If the rulebook says that you can only rescue Lost Souls in your opponents' territories, then they will do that without question. The rule would have no exceptions, so there is no room for misunderstanding. This is the ideal situation for that new player trying to learn the game.

We have to remember that there are an unknown number of people around the country that are playing Redemption right now with no clue that this Message Board exists. They do not go to tournaments, nor do they even know about the tournaments. They just gather around a table with family or friends on game night and play for the fun of it. The dad at the table wants the game to be as easy to learn as possible, so that he can play with even his youngest child.

browarod · « **Reply #201 on:** October 15, 2011, 08:31:16 PM »

I really don't think that the target audience of the starter deck should have any impact on rule changes. I agree that the printing of a new rule book is a good time to solidify rulings one way or another because then they can be put it into print so people that don't know about the REG can still update to the changes. However, you seem to be insinuating that the new players are the only ones who are going to be affected by this, which is very much not true. Everyone is affected whether they actually buy the new starter decks or not, so I don't think catering to one group of people over another should even be considered (whether it be catering to the new players who have to rely on the starter deck's rulebook or catering to the advanced players here on the board).

Simplicity is completely related to how you word something. If you use the proper verbage, anything can be simple to understand. "You can only rescue Lost Souls from opponent's Lands of Bondage" is simple, sure, but so is "You can only attack opponents; "Any" on a card means you can choose any target regardless of who controls it." It's all in how you word it (I'm an English minor, I would know, lol). Tell me this, do these new players that have trouble understanding that SoG/NJ can rescue your own souls also not realize that you can capture or convert or discard your own characters with special abilities that don't specify "opponent's"? Because, honestly, if you try to spell everything out completely in a rulebook it'll end up being so long it's not feasible to print, so some things are forced to be understood (like the fact that if some cards specify "opponent's" then there must be a reason that some don't).

You talk about exceptions, special abilities ARE exceptions, that's what they do. You can't normally draw other than your draw phase, yet Matthew lets you do it whenever he attacks; you aren't normally allowed to take an opponent's character and put it in your land of bondage as a lost soul, but capture cards let you do it. It's impossible to have a card game with unique game mechanics and anything other than battles by numbers without exceptions to game rules.

Also, since Bryon demands game experience otherwise he completely ignores comments, I will say this: While I still have not actually played any games with this rule, had it been a rule in place at today's tournament I would have lost my final match 5-0 since I had to use my SoG+NJ defensively against my opponent's Samuel speed deck. As it stands without this rule, I managed to pull out a loss with 2 rather than 0, otherwise he would have won 4 straight games 5-0. As I mentioned several pages back, I personally do not think speed is the root of the issue, it's that offenses are too powerful, and speed just helps people get those powerful cards as fast as possible.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #202 on:** October 15, 2011, 09:43:36 PM »

Quote from: browarod on October 15, 2011, 08:31:16 PM

I really don't think that the target audience of the starter deck should have any impact on rule changes.

I do. We agree to disagree.

Quote from: browarod on October 15, 2011, 08:31:16 PM

However, you seem to be insinuating that the new players are the only ones who are going to be affected by this, which is very much not true.

I was not insinuating that.

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #203 on:** October 15, 2011, 09:51:58 PM »

I still haven't seen any real evidence that this rule will increase the simplicity of the game one way or the other, other than by a negligible amount. I'm not really sure why the phrase, "except when using the Son of God and New Jerusalem cards" would be such a bad idea. I'm all for making the game simpler for newer players (I struggled for a very long time with the nuances of post-block ignore, which is why I'm in favor of that specific rule change), but I think that this rule change would change the meta drastically, for very little payoff. YMT, I neglected to mention this earlier, but I actually had an extremely hard time picking up the game. It's only been since last April that I've truly started to understand the way 95% of the stuff in the game works and why it works. For the two years before that, it was only through the patience of Gabe and other players on RTS that I was able to stick with it and grow as a player, and a member of this community.

On another note, I understand that Rob is fundamentally against the idea of banning cards, and I do understand his reasoning. However, I'm forced to conclude that every single argument that has been presented in favor of this rule change could be solved with simply banning the card. This would appease those who don't like NJ to begin with, give newer players a chance to rescue a soul or two on their own since their opponent would have to rescue one more soul the "traditional" way before they could win, and it would help reduce the impact of speed. I guess what I'm saying is, can we at least open the possibility up to discussion? What if we only banned it at State level tournaments or higher, where new players will likely only be able to go with more experienced players and thus, have more knowledge of deck building than a regular player without much prior tournament experience? I just hate how the most feasible solution to the problem is being disregarded because of a long-standing rule by Rob.

lp670sv · « **Reply #204 on:** October 15, 2011, 10:48:06 PM »

Quote from: lightningninja on October 15, 2011, 05:12:59 PM

Yes, I know what a target audience is. I was purposefully redefining the word, if you will. The point is, in order for Cactus to increase sales and Redemption to grow, they need new players to join, not players like us to like the game MORE. If this rule can do that, and yes it's VERY arguable, but this is what the heart of the debate comes down to, then it's a good rule, even if some players hate it and think it makes speed more powerful. I hope that makes sense. My last sentence should have said, "...make it easier and more satisfying for NEW players to play the game..." Sorry for the confusion.

It's more important to have a high retention rate then a high rate of new players. If this rule makes it easier for new players to learn the game (which I really don't think it will) then great, but right now it's frustrating a lot of current players, some to the point of them saying they'd no longer play if this rule were out in place. Honestly if I started having a lot of games end up like this weeks root game, then I'd probably quit to. That game was not fun. I worked hard to build and test that deck, and every single card in it. It's not my fault that my opponent couldn't compete with that deck, but having to site around and wait like for nearly half an hour without being able to do anything was frustrating. Why punish players who have been playing for a long time and have built top tier decks for investing the time and money in the game that it takes to be a top player, and I'm not even a top player yet and it's Already frustrating me. What good is adding a bunch of new players if the old ones quit and what's to keep the new ones from quitting once they become the top tier and another rule change is made in favor of new players?

browarod · « **Reply #205 on:** October 15, 2011, 10:51:52 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on October 15, 2011, 09:43:36 PM

Quote from: browarod on October 15, 2011, 08:31:16 PM
I really don't think that the target audience of the starter deck should have any impact on rule changes.
I do. We agree to disagree.

I fail to understand why, though. If we're so concerned about the new players that we alienate the long-standing players, I really don't see how that is beneficial for the game in the long-run. I understand your concerns about the continued influx of new players, but if we bring them in just to disregard them later down the line then what was the purpose of bringing them in to start with?

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on October 15, 2011, 09:43:36 PM

I was not insinuating that.

And yet you make comments like the first quote above that make your opinion clearly apparent that new players are more important to you than current players. From my perspective all players are equally important, new and old. And unless you find yourself willing to explain your difference of opinion I'm afraid I will continue to be in the dark. Agreeing to disagree is a cop out, I'd much rather know exactly where you're coming from so that I can talk with you on a level playing field.

I'm trying to understand where you're coming from, but you're not making it easy. I don't have the experience with starting a playgroup that you have, so your references to it don't mean as much to me as you intend them to, which is not a fault of either of ours just a lack of specific common ground. We have several experienced players, some moderately experienced players, and several relatively new players in the playgroup I attend, though, so I do have a fair amount of experience with varying levels of player skill, understanding, and style. I don't claim that this is enough to understand everything, but I think it gives me enough right to receive more than just "I disagree......<silence>" as an answer.

Did you even read what I posted past the first three sentences?

lightningninja · « **Reply #206 on:** October 16, 2011, 02:23:37 AM »

Quote from: browarod on October 15, 2011, 08:31:16 PM

I really don't think that the target audience of the starter deck should have any impact on rule changes. I agree that the printing of a new rule book is a good time to solidify rulings one way or another because then they can be put it into print so people that don't know about the REG can still update to the changes. However, you seem to be insinuating that the new players are the only ones who are going to be affected by this, which is very much not true. Everyone is affected whether they actually buy the new starter decks or not, so I don't think catering to one group of people over another should even be considered (whether it be catering to the new players who have to rely on the starter deck's rulebook or catering to the advanced players here on the board).

100% I think this is incorrect, and I've said why. Setting aside the previous 14 pages, to isolate this argument for simplicities' sake. Cactus needs new players to grow. The simpler the game, the more new players can adapt. If you are [upset] about this rule, but 5 new players join, Cactus is OVERJOYED that they made the change. I mean, they will regret that you are upset, and they hope you understand, but if it gets new players, it's worth it. You're not going to quit the game because of this, it's not THAT big of an issue. But it could be big enough to bring in new players, which is a good choice. Once again, setting aside the argument of "if it simplifies the game," IF it were to simplify the game for argumentation's sake, it would be a good rule. Even if it upset some experienced players.

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #207 on:** October 16, 2011, 09:13:01 AM »

Except I'm not sure how you can even entertain the idea that this rule change will make or break someone joining the game. If someone gets to that point in the rules and throws their deck away because this particular rule is too complicated for them, they weren't going to last very long anyways. To imply that something so minor to the actual rules themselves would make that big of an impact is nothing short of wild speculation.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #208 on:** October 16, 2011, 09:19:08 AM »

I agree with the Ninja that I did not see this rule as "alienating" experienced payers. Throughout the years we have all had debates about rulings and rule changes. There are times when I was very vocal about the changes, even saying that I would leave the game. But, ultimately, I remember that this game is not about me. I have a higher purpose as a host, as I have explained, which is to bring more players into the game. Ideally, I am not bringing them into the game to win tournaments. I am bringing them into the game so that they are inundated with the Word of God in a fun way. We just added a new player to Redemption Disney yesterday. He is unsaved and his family needs a miracle. Redemption is just a foot in the door.

When I sit back and look at the bigger picture, I realize that whatever rulings occur that I disagree with (even vehemently), I will get over it in time, and life will move on. There are a few players who will let it get to them enough to walk away (STAMP, I'm looking at you), but we are hopeful that we can lure them back in eventually.

So, for those that oppose this ruling, I have nothing against your stance. Your voice may win the debate, and that is fine. I would like to see the rule change for reasons I already mentioned, but that is the end of it for me. I have no desire to alienate (or infuriate) any of my brother/sisters in Christ. I just want the game easier to teach because of my specific bias. Peace be to all.

STAMP · « **Reply #209 on:** October 16, 2011, 11:07:50 AM »

Wow, I apologize to the community if anyone felt I left because of a disagreement with rules. That was never an issue. I left because I had a more expensive hobby. Now that my boat is gone it's not expensive anymore. So I'm back. But not in the same capacity.

My motivation for the rules ebbs and flows. For every great rule change (unredeemable demons, this one) there are some real McFly ones (pre-loaded enhancements). But overall it's improving greatly. It's like the stock market over the course of time.

I'm really enjoying the game right now. I play games at home with TJ and our old playgroup gets together every once in awhile to play unsanctioned tournaments. That probably won't change for awhile.

browarod · « **Reply #210 on:** October 16, 2011, 12:13:16 PM »

Quote from: lightningninja on October 16, 2011, 02:23:37 AM

100% I think this is incorrect, and I've said why. Setting aside the previous 14 pages, to isolate this argument for simplicities' sake. Cactus needs new players to grow. The simpler the game, the more new players can adapt. If you are [upset] about this rule, but 5 new players join, Cactus is OVERJOYED that they made the change. I mean, they will regret that you are upset, and they hope you understand, but if it gets new players, it's worth it. You're not going to quit the game because of this, it's not THAT big of an issue. But it could be big enough to bring in new players, which is a good choice.

I'm not denying that new players are important, I'm really not. I just disagree that they're the ONLY important people. No, most people aren't going to leave if one ruling doesn't go their way, but that doesn't mean they're not important. Growing is great for a game, but you can't grow if current players flood out even as new players flood in. One ruling going their way is not going to make most people leave, but ignore them enough times and yeah they will leave because it's not going to be worth it to them anymore when their opinion doesn't seem to matter to anyone. Would you enjoy a hobby where the people in charge trick you into getting into it with "simple" gameplay and promises of your voice mattering just to get you within their folds and promptly treat you like you don't matter? That's what you and YMT seem to be advocating. The mark of a good game is one that can attract new players AND keep long-standing players, I don't see why you're so vehement about helping one and avoiding the other.

Besides, as YMT has clearly pointed out, new players aren't only brought into the game by their own volition with a starter deck and rulebook. YMT himself has said he's started new playgroups in 5 states, presumably including bringing some new players into the game. Without his experience and years with the game I doubt it would have gone nearly as smoothly. If we choose to throw away the importance of players once they're playing, they'll be less likely to bring new people in as they continue which, in the end, leads to a decrease of new players coming in. That seems to be the opposite result that you and YMT think is all-important.

Quote from: lightningninja on October 16, 2011, 02:23:37 AM

Once again, setting aside the argument of "if it simplifies the game," IF it were to simplify the game for argumentation's sake, it would be a good rule. Even if it upset some experienced players.

That's a big if, and so far there hasn't been any proof that it really simplifies the game like you say. Like I said earlier, concepts can be as simple as you word them. You can word the current rule as simply as you are saying you can word the new rule.

tl;dr - New players are important, yes. But growth requires retention, not just addition, and if you ignore the veterans long enough they're inevitably going to stop caring and leave and then where will we be?

katedid · « **Reply #211 on:** October 16, 2011, 01:34:43 PM »

Quote from: browarod on October 16, 2011, 12:13:16 PM

tl;dr - New players are important, yes. But growth requires retention, not just addition, and if you ignore the veterans long enough they're inevitably going to stop caring and leave and then where will we be?

Really really stuck because its the veterans who bring in the new players. Im pretty certain Im a convert, of a convert of a convert. SomeKittens can correct me if I'm wrong onthis order. ,

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #212 on:** October 16, 2011, 01:57:01 PM »

Quote from: browarod on October 16, 2011, 12:13:16 PM

I'm not denying that new players are important, I'm really not. I just disagree that they're the ONLY important people.

And I'm not denying that experienced players are important, nor am I saying that new players are the ONLY important people. I am saying that new players are the most important to me, for my own selfish reasons.

Quote from: browarod on October 16, 2011, 12:13:16 PM

...but ignore them enough times and yeah they will leave because it's not going to be worth it to them anymore when their opinion doesn't seem to matter to anyone.

So I should leave the game because you continue to ignore the fact that I was offering my opinion to those that asked for my opinion. I was never interested in debating my opinion, or having someone else tear it apart. I was offering my opinion because it was asked for. The end.

Quote from: browarod on October 16, 2011, 12:13:16 PM

Would you enjoy a hobby where the people in charge trick you into getting into it with "simple" gameplay and promises of your voice mattering just to get you within their folds and promptly treat you like you don't matter? That's what you and YMT seem to be advocating.

LOL. I have nothing more to say to such comments.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #213 on:** October 16, 2011, 02:16:31 PM »

Quote from: STAMP on October 16, 2011, 11:07:50 AM

Wow, I apologize to the community if anyone felt I left because of a disagreement with rules. That was never an issue. I left because I had a more expensive hobby.

My apologies, then, for pointing you out. I may have been the only one that thought that. I guess all the talk about ANB and redeemed demons led me to believe that those were contributing factors to your decision. Sorry about that. $:-\$

STAMP · « **Reply #214 on:** October 16, 2011, 05:39:52 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on October 16, 2011, 02:16:31 PM

Quote from: STAMP on October 16, 2011, 11:07:50 AM
Wow, I apologize to the community if anyone felt I left because of a disagreement with rules. That was never an issue. I left because I had a more expensive hobby.

My apologies, then, for pointing you out. I may have been the only one that thought that. I guess all the talk about ANB and redeemed demons led me to believe that those were contributing factors to your decision. Sorry about that. $:-\$

No harm, no foul.

Most of the time I'm like Steve Irwin. I see a dangerous ruling thread, I'm like, "Look, mate, it's a highly dangerous ruling thread! I'm going to poke it with a stick."

SomeKittens · « **Reply #215 on:** October 16, 2011, 08:36:23 PM »

Quote from: katedid on October 16, 2011, 01:34:43 PM

Quote from: browarod on October 16, 2011, 12:13:16 PM
tl;dr - New players are important, yes. But growth requires retention, not just addition, and if you ignore the veterans long enough they're inevitably going to stop caring and leave and then where will we be?

Really really stuck because its the veterans who bring in the new players. Im pretty certain Im a convert, of a convert of a convert. SomeKittens can correct me if I'm wrong onthis order. ,

John M's the one who got me into the game.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #216 on:** October 16, 2011, 08:43:01 PM »

Quote from: STAMP on October 16, 2011, 05:39:52 PM

No harm, no foul.

I decided to make it up to you by being right about the 49ers.

browarod · « **Reply #217 on:** October 16, 2011, 08:58:09 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on October 16, 2011, 01:57:01 PM

And I'm not denying that experienced players are important, nor am I saying that new players are the ONLY important people. I am saying that new players are the most important to me, for my own selfish reasons.

Well, now we're getting somewhere.

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on October 16, 2011, 01:57:01 PM

So I should leave the game because you continue to ignore the fact that I was offering my opinion to those that asked for my opinion. I was never interested in debating my opinion, or having someone else tear it apart. I was offering my opinion because it was asked for. The end.

I haven't ignored anything, not on purpose at least. This whole time I've just been trying to understand why you hold your opinion so that I can reflect upon that and determine exactly why I hold my differing opinion (and make sure that's how I really feel, which I believe it is). I'm sorry if you felt ignored, it was not my intention. However, I really did read your comments and take away that you thought new players were the ONLY important people, which you have since said is not true so I will do my best to remember that.

STAMP · « **Reply #218 on:** October 17, 2011, 11:28:22 AM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on October 16, 2011, 08:43:01 PM

Quote from: STAMP on October 16, 2011, 05:39:52 PM
No harm, no foul.

I decided to make it up to you by being right about the 49ers.

Then no one was more right than you!

News:

Author Topic: Simplicity or Balance? (Read 31773 times)

browarod

Chronic Apathy

lp670sv

browarod

Chronic Apathy

browarod

browarod