Author Topic: Feedback on Opp LSs ONLY (used in Oct ROOT) (Read 12731 times)

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #25 on:** October 07, 2011, 11:22:30 AM »

Rather than adjusting for more defense, I just put in more soul generation and it worked like a charm.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #26 on:** October 07, 2011, 12:30:30 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on October 07, 2011, 11:22:30 AM

Rather than adjusting for more defense, I just put in more soul generation and it worked like a charm.

Considering that almost all the LS generation depends on ECs, it won't do you any good if you play against a defense-heavy deck that never attacks until the end (and when it does attack your LS-generating-ECs won't work anyway).

For the first time in a LONG time I really think that having a deck that is virtually all offense is at a disadvantage compared to a deck that is more balanced and has enough defense to hold off an opponent until the LSs naturally become available. And if the new SoG/NJ rule is implemented, this will only become MORE true.

soul seeker · « **Reply #27 on:** October 07, 2011, 12:46:45 PM »

Mark, you assume too much about several points.
1) most LS generation can be done by ECs but you don't have to rely on your opponents->side battles help with the EC part too.
2) not everyone wants a lot of defense it can be considered slow, boring, and will have lots of timeouts.
3) Timeouts frustrate almost everyone. If you want balance, then you should check out T2 instead of trying to make T1 look more like T2.
4) the game is about rescuing lost souls...not sitting across from each other for hours only to have no one win.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #28 on:** October 07, 2011, 12:50:58 PM »

LS generation is not based on EC's at all. Using Woman at the Well gets you one, using Water Jar will almost certainly get you at least one, both of those circumvent Hopper to make your opponent's total souls 8, Generous Widow gives you a chance on their D2 (and a chance for your hopper or revealer on your D2(4 with Gifts up)), Martha gives you a chance on your opponent's D1 and your D1 or 2, Hospitality of Martha gives you a chance on your and opponent's D3 (your D6 with Gifts), and you have your own Hopper, Revealer, and Harvest Time.

The only way I could possibly see this having a positive effect is with the Dom cap also in place. Then, if you go 57 for the 8th dom, you're very likely to have a soul and you lose 3 of your doms (one of which will likely be Harvest Time), and if you go 50 for sheer speed, you lose 4 doms. Otherwise, this rule basically necessitates water tomb.

Professoralstad · « **Reply #29 on:** October 07, 2011, 12:58:28 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on October 07, 2011, 12:30:30 PM

Considering that almost all the LS generation depends on ECs, it won't do you any good if you play against a defense-heavy deck that never attacks until the end (and when it does attack your LS-generating-ECs won't work anyway).

This is not even remotely true. In my deck, there are 6 cards that can usually generate souls, and another one that sometimes does, and only one of them is evil. And not only that, with just a few slight modifications, all of them fit perfectly into the rest of the deck. The new rule has only helped that deck, which has a grand total of 10 evil cards (half of them dominants).

Quote from: Minister Polarius on October 07, 2011, 12:50:58 PM

LS generation is not based on EC's at all. Using Woman at the Well gets you one, using Water Jar will almost certainly get you at least one, both of those circumvent Hopper to make your opponent's total souls 8, Generous Widow gives you a chance on their D2 (and a chance for your hopper or revealer on your D2(4 with Gifts up)), Martha gives you a chance on your opponent's D1 and your D1 or 2, Hospitality of Martha gives you a chance on your and opponent's D3 (your D6 with Gifts), and you have your own Hopper, Revealer, and Harvest Time.

The only way I could possibly see this having a positive effect is with the Dom cap also in place. Then, if you go 57 for the 8th dom, you're very likely to have a soul and you lose 3 of your doms (one of which will likely be Harvest Time), and if you go 50 for sheer speed, you lose 4 doms. Otherwise, this rule basically necessitates water tomb.

Now that Polarius has stated what I had hoped wasn't as obvious, I might as well be more specific: Woman at the Well, Samaritan Water Jar, and The Thankful Leper (which can often basically get 2 LS's to rescue for SoG/NJ by recurring your opponent's buried 2/3 Liner) are only three cards that can fit very well into a Samuel deck (both of the Heroes can play Edict, with TTL making it CBN in some cases, and throwing in Ambush the City makes them even more useful).

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #30 on:** October 07, 2011, 01:52:50 PM »

Yeah, all this rule has done so far is make me mad that I can't rescue souls because I have souls and my opponent does not. All it does it make speed v speed even more luck based, if that were possible.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #31 on:** October 07, 2011, 04:42:05 PM »

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on October 07, 2011, 01:52:50 PM

Yeah, all this rule has done so far is make me mad that I can't rescue souls because I have souls and my opponent does not. All it does it make speed v speed even more luck based, if that were possible.

If you have souls and you opponent does not, then probably you are going through your deck faster than they are. That's your choice to make a speed deck.

As for the comments about making LSs with offense, I'll agree that there are options there, but I still prefer those options to traditional speed when I'm trying to block. I'd much rather be having to stop a RA from Woman at the Well for instance than I would from Joseph, or Thad, or the TGT girls all banded together, or Phineas, etc.

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #32 on:** October 07, 2011, 04:53:02 PM »

So basically, the logic is we should change a long-standing game rule to stop a strategy that was made stronger with the last set? Wouldn't the better option be - I don't know - not print fast cards for a while? When stuff like Sam gets printed, you really just have to either ban the card or roll with it. Changing major game rules to compensate does not a good foundation make.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #33 on:** October 07, 2011, 07:13:50 PM »

I believe the stated intent of this was to nerf NJ, a card that's been out long before most of us were even playing. Just because we took it and decided it meant "nerf speed" doesn't mean that the rule was intended to do so. I still say just ban NJ or go with the 8/60 upsize, but eh.

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #34 on:** October 07, 2011, 07:46:51 PM »

Regardless of the original stated intent, the argument has essentially become centered on the effects this ruling would have on speed. Even if this wasn't the case, I think my main point still stands: Changing game rules rather than just banning cards doesn't suddenly make something more fun, it effectively creates the same slippery slope that people bring up whenever banning cards is mentioned.

SomeKittens · « **Reply #35 on:** October 07, 2011, 08:33:42 PM »

I think we're missing a crucial point here. If this rule goes into effect, John Earley will become the best deckbuilder of all time. We as a community need to come together and realize that one of the biggest, no, the biggest effect of this change is that our greatest living legend will be a guy who carries a stuffed penguin around. Do we really want this? We cannot let this happen! Vote No!

/Nothing against RDT.
//Stupid watergarden...
///If it weren't for him, I'd be undefeated against Elders in T1-2P.

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #36 on:** October 11, 2011, 10:31:45 PM »

So far the new rule has only come into play once in my ROOT games, and it was indirectly. I made a bad call based on the new rule and fear of my opponent not drawing souls, which possibly cost me the game. I remain avidly against the rule, as the biggest impact will be it will encourage luck over skill.

lp670sv · « **Reply #37 on:** October 11, 2011, 10:51:05 PM »

rule worked as intended. game should have ended half an hour before it did and would have been 5-0 instead of 5-2. the only downside I can see to this is in tournaments that get decided based on LS deferential.

katedid · « **Reply #38 on:** October 11, 2011, 11:04:38 PM »

Quote from: lp670sv on October 11, 2011, 10:51:05 PM

rule worked as intended. game should have ended half an hour before it did and would have been 5-0 instead of 5-2. the only downside I can see to this is in tournaments that get decided based on LS deferential.

I agree on with this. Honestly, I found the game more enjoyable on my part because I felt like I had a chance. Altogether I see the rule not making a huge difference most of the time and when it does it will be against the most inexperienced. Most of the time, soul drought of epic proportions like this game doesnt happen

browarod · « **Reply #39 on:** October 11, 2011, 11:19:19 PM »

Quote from: katedid on October 11, 2011, 11:04:38 PM

Most of the time, soul drought of epic proportions like this game doesnt happen

Honestly, I think it happens more often than people think or even realize. Lost Soul drought is the #1 reason games that I've witnessed go longer than they could, even with the soul generation of the pre-2011 set era. I honestly don't see this rule doing anything but making that worse.

I don't necessarily think it's fair to the ahead player if they can't use the cards in their hand the way they say they can be used just to end up winning anyway but with a lower differential X amount of time later. Sure the behind player might have more fun if they get to play longer, but I doubt the ahead player would (I know I wouldn't in that position, I would just be frustrated) so who are we to decide that the behind player deserves to have more fun than the ahead player?

Disclaimer: I have not actually played any games with this rule, I am speaking strictly from hypothetical impact.

lp670sv · « **Reply #40 on:** October 12, 2011, 10:37:16 AM »

If you're wondering how the ahead player feels, it was the most frustrating thing in any game of redemption of my life to sit there with SOG/NJ in hand with 3 lost souls and having to wait a total of 7 more turns before I actually won and watching my opponent use her SOG/NJ to hurt my differential. She was definitely having fun torturing me over soul drought but I was not enjoying it thinking of the fact that I already have one loss this month so the only chance I have of wining the month is if every loses at least on game and it comes down to soul differential, at i lost 2 on that differential because of this rule

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #41 on:** October 12, 2011, 04:25:02 PM »

I understand people's frustration with lower LS differential, but it is similar to when the rule changed a couple years ago to limit people's LSs to 5 in T1. That also kept people from racking up high LS differential, but because it applied to everyone it balanced out. This would have the same affect. Everyone's differential should go down proportionately so it all evens out.

And just like the LS limit of 5 helped people not feel so blown out in games, this rule will also help the loser of a game to feel like they had more of a chance. That is good for the health of any game. The winners keep playing because their winning. The losers need to feel like they at least have a chance, or they won't come back.

Red Dragon Thorn · « **Reply #42 on:** October 12, 2011, 04:46:08 PM »

Quote from: SomeKittens on October 07, 2011, 08:33:42 PM

I think we're missing a crucial point here. If this rule goes into effect, John Earley will become the best deckbuilder of all time. We as a community need to come together and realize that one of the biggest, no, the biggest effect of this change is that our greatest living legend will be a guy who carries a stuffed penguin around. Do we really want this? We cannot let this happen! Vote No!

/Nothing against RDT.
//Stupid watergarden...
///If it weren't for him, I'd be undefeated against Elders in T1-2P.

Haha, While I agree that it would seem to make a deck after my style the ideal choice, I wouldn't say that there's any possible way that I am, or could ever be 'Our greatest living legend'. It is true that I carry around a stuffed penguin, and I personally feel that should be enough on its own

SomeKittens · « **Reply #43 on:** October 12, 2011, 04:47:39 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on October 12, 2011, 04:25:02 PM

I understand people's frustration with lower LS differential, but it is similar to when the rule changed a couple years ago to limit people's LSs to 5 in T1. That also kept people from racking up high LS differential, but because it applied to everyone it balanced out. This would have the same affect. Everyone's differential should go down proportionately so it all evens out.

And just like the LS limit of 5 helped people not feel so blown out in games, this rule will also help the loser of a game to feel like they had more of a chance. That is good for the health of any game. The winners keep playing because their winning. The losers need to feel like they at least have a chance, or they won't come back.

Did the limitation to 5 cause players to lose due to luck?

lp670sv · « **Reply #44 on:** October 12, 2011, 04:48:47 PM »

But in the case of the LS limit, that truly is universal. it doesn't matter what actually happens in the game you can only rescue 5 LSs. This rule doesn't effect you at all, unless your opponent goes 7 turns without drawing the LS you need to win. Then it does. And that doesn't happen every game, but if you have a 2 way tie for first place and one of the people had a game like there and the other didn't you have a problem. The rule didn't apply to both of them equally.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #45 on:** October 12, 2011, 04:51:23 PM »

In one game, the proposed change almost cost me the game. My opponent was playing speed and in spite of my Harvest Time, Hopper, and Revealer he had almost no souls available all game. I quickly went up 3-1 against his flimsy defense, but by the time he had drawn any LS's my defense had been obliterated by an entire deck of offense. If his drought had continued one more turn I would have lost because of the rule.

From my experience, all the rule does is either force you to play water tomb or brave it out, cause 5-0 games to become 5-2 games, and make soul drought an even bigger luck factor.

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #46 on:** October 12, 2011, 05:22:06 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on October 12, 2011, 04:25:02 PM

And just like the LS limit of 5 helped people not feel so blown out in games, this rule will also help the loser of a game to feel like they had more of a chance. That is good for the health of any game. The winners keep playing because their winning. The losers need to feel like they at least have a chance, or they won't come back.

I don't even have a sarcastic example for this. It's horrible logic, and can be applied to banning anyone who's ever placed in a district or higher tournament from ever playing in a local. Likewise, players should have at least two years of experience and have won at least 10 locals before they should be permitted to play in a State level tournament, lest they get defeated and decide to drop the game. I know nobody cares, but the implementation of this rule would probably make me lose interest in Redemption entirely.

SomeKittens · « **Reply #47 on:** October 12, 2011, 07:21:12 PM »

Quote from: katedid on October 06, 2011, 11:56:54 AM

My goal is to win a legit real time game, not RTS, at least once. Still havent yet but have come so close

^This. Still hasn't won a real game, but keeps at it. She's got the potential to be one of the best players in my group.

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #48 on:** October 12, 2011, 07:37:39 PM »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jYcW1nEsGk

browarod · « **Reply #49 on:** October 12, 2011, 07:58:09 PM »

Quote from: Chronic Apathy on October 12, 2011, 05:22:06 PM

I know nobody cares, but the implementation of this rule would probably make me lose interest in Redemption entirely.

I would care. I hate to see people lose hobbies because something or another makes it not enjoyable anymore for them.

News:

Author Topic: Feedback on Opp LSs ONLY (used in Oct ROOT) (Read 12731 times)

Chronic Apathy

Chronic Apathy

Chronic Apathy

lp670sv

browarod

lp670sv

lp670sv

Chronic Apathy

Chronic Apathy

browarod