Cactus Game Design Message Boards

How is going back and forth between the two a good thing>

I wonder if Split Altar would win best green enhancement...

I doubt most people are voting for the better hero here. I'm betting alot of votes are due to Daniel being the newest and shiniest Nats promo, which still makes it a popularity contest.

See Goliath.

Quote from: Master KChief on March 09, 2012, 10:42:04 AM

I doubt most people are voting for the better hero here. I'm betting alot of votes are due to Daniel being the newest and shiniest Nats promo, which still makes it a popularity contest.

See Goliath.

Of course, the key difference there is that Goliath hadn't been released when he ultimately lost April Fools, and Daniel has been out for 8 months now. I've heard a few people mention that they haven't even ever seen Daniel played, and for the most part, he has been entirely absent from the online meta. I think claiming that Daniel is beating Susie by 5 votes (out of 45 votes total, mind), simply due to the fact that he's the newer card is pretty ridiculous. He's been out for 8 months now, and "he's the new and shiny card!" argument doesn't work when there's more people calling out, "who even uses him?!"

We've already examined the two cards assuming that neither one is receiving any support (a point that Daniel wins by a landslide, mind), let's look at it from just a little support then, maybe 3-4 cards. Even then, Daniel is still, in my mind, way ahead. Susie would need to take a couple of those cards and just have them as female NT heroes (which, is one of them is MMoJ and the other is another Garden Girl, I'd rather just be rescuing with them anyway) just so her ability isn't a glorified d1. Maybe she has 'He is Risen' and Herod's Temple or something like that, and shoot, gains a white enhancement off her ability (a pretty bad grab most of the time, but at times, it's exactly what you need), letting her survive a Christian Martyr and get a chance to play a negatable good enhancement. We'll neuter Daniel and only give him three cards: Search, Hidden Treasures, and Two Bears. Daniel right away negates protect forts and all evil abilities so there won't be any auto-blocks coming his way. He takes a peak at his opponent's hand so he knows exactly what's coming, then pulls out whatever card he needs to deal with it (or, if there's nothing that needs dealt with, just searches the opponent's deck and takes out Plot or Confusion or something).

I tried to make that relatively unbiased, and I may have failed miserably, but I did end up giving Susie two extra cards over Daniel and I gave her some good cards to work with too. The fact of the matter is she's a support character. She has great initiative, but unless she plays FiOHP, everything she plays can also be interrupted (and white, by the way, doesn't have that many interrupts of their own [admittedly, only purple and teal really have a ridiculous amount to write home about]), so her initiative only really goes so far. She may fit into a superior deck than Daniel does, but she's not the best hero in those decks. Her ability doesn't win battles, Daniel's does. For me, that's an easy one. Daniel should win this, but MMoJ v. Daniel is a much, much tougher battle for me.

How is going back and forth between the two a good thing>

Because it shows that people are going by the individual merits of a card and it's placement, rather than a flat set of inward rules. Sometimes individual heroes deserve to be voted for because they're great heroes, over heroes that fall into great decks. Likewise, sometimes heroes that fall into great decks deserve to be voted over heroes that are just great (Angel Under the Oak v. CoTH [or TSA] is going to be vicious).

I've heard a few people mention that they haven't even ever seen Daniel played, and for the most part, he has been entirely absent from the online meta. I think claiming that Daniel is beating Susie by 5 votes (out of 45 votes total, mind), simply due to the fact that he's the newer card is pretty ridiculous. He's been out for 8 months now, and "he's the new and shiny card!" argument doesn't work when there's more people calling out, "who even uses him?!"

So what you're trying to say...is that even though people dont use him, that doesnt make him a 'new and shiny card'? Riiiiiight. A cards playability or lack of it certainly does not correlate to it being a new card or not. Daniel was released in a weaker theme that is not top tier, and people really wonder 'who even uses him'? The fact he came out 8 months ago is also completely irrelevant. You might have an argument if Cactus released 3 more expansions like other CCG's between that time to warrant him an 'old' card. 6 of those 8 months are completely DEAD for the season until serious tournaments start beginning. Fact is he is the latest and most brand newest Nationals promo with limited amounts in circulation. There is still PLENTY of hype surrounding a card of that status, as with any brand new Nationals promo first year. I am more than sure plenty of RLK's have voted for Daniel in this poll based soley on those credentials alone.

A card can have hype for many different reasons. Playability is one. Brand spankin' new is another. Rarity can be another. Its fairly obvoius Daniel still holds a lot of hype because it satisfies two of those conditions.

Yes because if there's one thing RLKs are known for its resisting changing to te popular opinion

I dont understand your point here. You're describing two different types of voters. One type of person votes for a card based on playability, the other votes based on new card hype.

No, I'm really not. RLKs are just as likely to go, "Susie won last year! Susie! Susie! Susie!" as they are to go, "Daniel is new! Daniel! Daniel! Daniel!"

OR, people simply look at the leading numbers on the first page and decide to jump on the bandwagon, because honestly at this point this thread has become tl;dr, probably even moreso to an RLK.

Uh huh, people took the time to change their vote for no other reason than so they would be voting with what they thought would be the winning side? It couldn't be the intelligent debate and excellent reasons to vote for Daniel brought forth? That's the story you're sticking with? That people are too stupid to vote for themselves?

Sure it does. What other logical possibility could it be? There are more RLK's than seasoned players.

I'm curious about the ratio of seasoned players to RLKs that actively participate on the boards, and March Madness in particular, but we have at least 50 active, non-RLK members online on any given week, and I'm willing to be that a good percentage of them vote in the March Madness polls. I think that blaming RLKs that Daniel is winning can easily translate to, "I'm angry my side isn't winning." Daniel is a good hero, and just because you don't see that, it doesn't mean RLKs are voting to sabotage the poll because he's the shiny new card. Be realistic.

Lulz no. RLK's care less about what has happened in the past. Chances are they weren't even here during last March Madness. RLK's are much more likely to be hyped about a brand new card, especially a just released National promo.

Perhaps, perhaps not.

Straw man argument much? I never said voters are not being swayed by some of the arguments presented here. I submitted a very likely theory as to why RLK's are voting for Daniel.

Suggesting that they're voting for whoever has more votes at point in time is suggesting that they're too stupid to vote for themselves.

On a side note, seeing numbers fluctuate (and on three seperate occasions, as unlikely as that may be) also does not necessarily equate to people changing sides.

Actually seeing numbers go down on one side and seeing numbers go up on the other does equate to switching sides. That's the very definition of switching sides. It was right around the end of page 1 and throughout page 2 that I actually saw the votes shift.

For every 50 seasoned players there are over 9000 RLK's.

Seems legit.

What makes this statement ironic is you don't know my side.

Chalking up Daniel winning to RLKs is a pretty good indicator that you think Susie should win. If I'm wrong, I apologize, but that's the overwhelming vibe I've gotten from you.

Daniel is a good hero, and just because you don't see that, it doesn't mean RLKs are voting to sabotage the poll because he's the shiny new card. Be realistic.

Daniel is a good hero, but not great. And yeah, RLK's will usually always favor the shiny new chase card. Once his sugarcoated new car smell wears off after next Nationals, he'll be nothing more than an inferior coaster for my Raspberry Iced Tea at Perkins.

Daniel is a great hero. At what did negating evil protect forts, evil characters, NT enhancements (very few of which Daniel can use effectively anyway), AND being part of what can be at least a four man banding chain, AND allowing you to look at your opponent's hand, or otherwise band in a 10/10 or 12/8 Angel NOT constitute as "great"? And did I mention that all of that is CBN? Daniel is a great hero, he just doesn't fall into any spectacular themes right now. If prophets get some more help (there's a ton of material to justify it) or a Daniel theme gets help (a ton of material to justify it), Daniel could become a part of a very, very viable theme, one way or another.

Perhaps, perhaps not.

Thats just how it is and will more than likely always be. I'm not just quoting experience from this game, but from other CCG's as well. RLK's flock to the shiny new chase card, even if it blows chunks.

Suggesting that they're voting for whoever has more votes at point in time is suggesting that they're too stupid to vote for themselves.

So I suppose the very definition of an RLK is extremely condescending, as everything they do they tend to do out of naivety and ignorance. :/

Actually seeing numbers go down on one side and seeing numbers go up on the other does equate to switching sides. That's the very definition of switching sides.

So I suppose if 1 person votes for Daniel and another completely different person removes their vote for Susanna that constitutes 'switching sides', eh?

Chalking up Daniel winning to RLKs is a pretty good indicator that you think Susie should win. If I'm wrong, I apologize, but that's the overwhelming vibe I've gotten from you.

So I wonder what that makes me if I voted for Daniel then.

Daniel is a great hero. At what did negating evil protect forts

Because people use those in Type 1.

evil characters

FBTN still does it better.

NT enhancements

The best white enhancements are NT. Does nothing to the #1 used evil enhancement in the Type 1 meta.

AND being part of what can be at least a four man banding chain

Inferior if you dont +Gajillion with it or arent FBTNB.

AND allowing you to look at your opponent's hand

Not that great if your name doesnt start with 'Damsel' and end with 'Divination'.

or otherwise band in a 10/10 or 12/8 Angel

Because passing initiative is awesome in this meta.

NOT constitute as "great"?

See above.

And did I mention that all of that is CBN?

You can slap CBN on Timothy, but does that make him great?

Daniel is a great hero, he just doesn't fall into any spectacular themes right now. If prophets get some more help (there's a ton of material to justify it) or a Daniel theme gets help (a ton of material to justify it), Daniel could become a part of a very, very viable theme, one way or another.

The problem with Daniel is he has a ton of good things going on with his card, but is not specialized at doing anything great. He does not specialize at doing at least one thing exceptionally well, which relegates him to a mediocre jack of all trades within his theme. The only silver lining to him is he is still able to poop all over the meta defense, but there are heros that still do that marginally better.

Not sure if trolling or actually not seeing the point. RLKs are followers by nature. Pretty much anyone older than them is someone they look up to in a sense and try to emulate. One of those ways is by voting the way they vote. Of course it doesn't have to be someone older either. Go in to any elementary-middle school class room and take a vote on something. When you ask people to raise their hands, watch their faces and see how many of them either raise or lower their hands after the initial burst goes up. Don't pretend this doesn't happen, it doesn't make them stupid it makes them easily influenced. That's why tobacco companies can't have add campaigns that target kids anymore, they're easily impressionable. They see what the crowd is doing and they want to fit in. Pretending otherwise is ridiculous.

I work as a camp counselor and don't need lectured on child and early adolescent psychology. Both of those age groups are easily influenced, yes, but if they actually care enough about something to undo their own vote, more likely than not, they've become entrenched in their own viewpoint - for whatever reason - and are not going to be inclined to change it. On the other hand, if they didn't care enough about their viewpoint to begin with, they're not going to care enough to change it either.

So now because you're arguing this is the one time you're going to take the over 9000 meme as a literal indication of the number? Come on man you know he was using a hyperbole, you know it's a meme, don't sink to that.

I was just wondering something aloud and he made a joke, which I acknowledged. No need to get all bent out of shape about it.

So I suppose if 1 person votes for Daniel and another completely different person removes their vote for Susanna that constitutes 'switching sides', eh?

First off, why would someone remove their vote for a hero and not vote for the other one? Second, If a person does remove a vote without voting for the other hero, they still did it knowing that that would be one less vote for the hero they had originally voted for, which is still sides since it's essentially a point for that other hero.

So I wonder what that makes me if I voted for Daniel then.

Then I'm confused why you seem to be so avidly against him.

Because people use those in Type 1.

You're not familiar with the online meta, but yes, people do use evil forts, especially right now when people are trying to come up with different defenses that will be effective, not to mention good ol' Gates of Samaria. They don't get used often, but they do get used, and Daniel inadvertently tackles that situation when it comes along.

FBTN still does it better.

We're not talking about whether FBTN or Daniel is better, it's whether Susie or Daniel is better.

The best white enhancements are NT. Does nothing to the #1 used evil enhancement in the Type 1 meta.

There aren't many evil NT enhancements to begin with, so it's not much of a defensible point. Wrath of Satan at least. Meh.

Inferior if you dont +Gajillion with it or arent FBTNB.

It's still better than any banding options Susie has to offer.

Not that great if your name doesnt start with 'Damsel' and end with 'Divination'.

Looking at your opponent's hand while negating their evil characters isn't great? Now you're just trolling.

Because passing initiative is awesome in this meta.

How many enhancements really take out a five character banding chain these days?

You can slap CBN on Timothy, but does that make him great?

No, but Timothy doesn't have a plethora of solid abilities.

The problem with Daniel is he has a ton of good things going on with his card, but is not specialized at doing anything great. He does not specialize at doing at least one thing exceptionally well, which relegates him to a mediocre jack of all trades within his theme. The only silver lining to him is he is still able to poop all over the meta defense, but there are heros that still do that marginally better.

As far as I know, there's no three card combination beyond Hidden Treasures, Search, and Daniel, that lets you view your opponent's hand, then pull out the exact card you need to deal with that scenario.

Greeson, I laughed at your post.