Author Topic: Ideas for future ROOT rulechange experiments. (Read 76287 times)

Josh · « **Reply #50 on:** December 31, 2011, 01:07:00 PM »

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on December 30, 2011, 04:04:30 PM

I can tell you what happens if we ban mayhem and new jerusalem. Genesis enters God tier.

That's why I suggested a vote by everyone who would play in that month of ROOT. And there could be a small discussion before the vote where everyone gives reasons to vote for specific cards. That way, you could give the reasons above (with a little more clarification) and the other voters can take that into consideration before voting.

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #51 on:** December 31, 2011, 01:11:04 PM »

I disagree with the way you want to go about it. By doing anything more than banning NJ and Mayhem, you're effectively proving anyone who says that banning cards will just lead to more banning correct.

Josh · « **Reply #52 on:** December 31, 2011, 01:44:12 PM »

Quote from: Chronic Apathy on December 31, 2011, 01:11:04 PM

I disagree with the way you want to go about it. By doing anything more than banning NJ and Mayhem, you're effectively proving anyone who says that banning cards will just lead to more banning correct.

I think you have misunderstood my posts. I am suggesting that exactly two cards get banned. I suggested Mayhem and NJ, which Alex said is dumb. But I also said the two cards should be voted on, and I gave a scoring system to do it. That way, the ROOT players themselves determine which cards are banned for the month. There should be a chance for everyone to make public their opinions so that everyone is informed enough to make the best decision. But once the vote is complete, the two bans are final, and there will be no more bans. If it ends up being Joseph and Samuel, so be it.

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #53 on:** December 31, 2011, 01:50:08 PM »

Here's my problem with that though: The only reason I support a month of banning cards is to lend a bit of legitimacy to the whole concept, and hopefully get a "Type Ban" started in two or three years as an official category. In order to do that though, we have to look at what the two most requested cards to be banned are: Mayhem and New Jerusalem. Regardless of what the 15 or so people in ROOT would vote, in a forum wide vote, these two would be the ones banned every time, and I doubt anyone would argue with that. With that in mind, I don't think there's any reason to do this unless those are the two cards that are being banned.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #54 on:** December 31, 2011, 02:05:12 PM »

Quote from: Chronic Apathy on December 31, 2011, 01:11:04 PM

you're effectively proving anyone who says that "banning cards will just lead to more banning" correct.

Which of course, we ARE correct, so he's entirely on the right path

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #55 on:** December 31, 2011, 02:06:32 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on December 31, 2011, 02:05:12 PM

Quote from: Chronic Apathy on December 31, 2011, 01:11:04 PM
you're effectively proving anyone who says that "banning cards will just lead to more banning" correct.
Which of course, we ARE correct, so he's entirely on the right path

Shush.

I actually disagree that that is how it has to work out, it just has to be handled delicately.

SomeKittens · « **Reply #56 on:** December 31, 2011, 03:50:54 PM »

I don't think "type ban" is the way to go. Set Rotation is what's needed.

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #57 on:** January 11, 2012, 06:02:06 PM »

I'd like to propose a month where at the beginning of the game, any doms that are drawn are shuffled back into the deck as many times as necessary until you have none in your hand to start and Doms are restricted from being played in the first round.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #58 on:** January 11, 2012, 06:34:02 PM »

That would be impossible to enforce without both players revealing their opening hands, and would lead to quite a bit of mucking about on RTS since a 50 card deck is very likely to have a dom in the opening hand.

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #59 on:** January 11, 2012, 06:36:29 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on January 11, 2012, 06:34:02 PM

That would be impossible to enforce without both players revealing their opening hands, and would lead to quite a bit of mucking about on RTS since a 50 card deck is very likely to have a dom in the opening hand.

RTS has a handy "shuffle into deck" feature that would work swimmingly. I'm aware that it would be impossible to enforce in ROOT, however, God forbid we leave things up to trust and an assumption that everyone involved is a good sportsman. It's easy to cheat in RTS as it is, so odds are, anyone who would abuse this would likely be abusing it anyway.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #60 on:** January 11, 2012, 06:40:28 PM »

You have to draw the line at trusting somewhere. Redemption is the only card game I know of that has major mechanics tied to an honor code, and while it's reasonable to expect honesty about certain things, and it's unreasonable to expect honesty about others.

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #61 on:** January 11, 2012, 06:42:17 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on January 11, 2012, 06:40:28 PM

You have to draw the line at trusting somewhere. Redemption is the only card game I know of that has major mechanics tied to an honor code, and while it's reasonable to expect honesty about certain things, and it's unreasonable to expect honesty about others.

Which major mechanics are tied to an honor code exactly? Also, I'm well aware that it would likely be too much in regular play, however, for ROOT, I don't really think it's unreasonable.

Red · « **Reply #62 on:** January 11, 2012, 06:45:21 PM »

Quote from: Chronic Apathy on January 11, 2012, 06:42:17 PM

Quote from: Minister Polarius on January 11, 2012, 06:40:28 PM
You have to draw the line at trusting somewhere. Redemption is the only card game I know of that has major mechanics tied to an honor code, and while it's reasonable to expect honesty about certain things, and it's unreasonable to expect honesty about others.

Which major mechanics are tied to an honor code exactly? Also, I'm well aware that it would likely be too much in regular play, however, for ROOT, I don't really think it's unreasonable.

Lost souls perhaps?

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #63 on:** January 11, 2012, 06:46:06 PM »

Playing a LS when it's drawn. From a purely worldly standpoint, the only thing keeping someone from holding a LS in hand is the chance of a judge seeing it there or the opponent seeing his hand before his next draw phase when he could drop it. Since this is a Christian game, it's reasonable to expect that people will play LS's when they draw them, but I think expecting them to mulligan until they have no Doms is a bit much.

RTSmaniac · « **Reply #64 on:** January 12, 2012, 12:32:12 AM »

I like to hide my lost souls in my art pile. :sneek:

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #65 on:** January 12, 2012, 12:35:19 AM »

What a coincidence! I like to put Artifacts in my Land of Bondage!

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #66 on:** January 12, 2012, 12:39:26 AM »

Quote from: Chronic Apathy on January 12, 2012, 12:35:19 AM

What a coincidence! I like to put Artifacts in my Land of Bondage!

I can't wait to redeem that Unholy Writ!

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #67 on:** January 12, 2012, 01:26:50 AM »

What if the idea was that players "MAY shuffle any doms in their opening hands (by revealing them first) and drawing to replace them, but may NOT play any doms on their 1st turn"?

That way, only doms would be shuffled, and if a player chose to hold on to their doms even though they couldn't play them the 1st turn, they would be allowed to. Would this get rid of the honor system problem?

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #68 on:** January 12, 2012, 01:31:21 AM »

The thing is, as Alex mentioned in the other thread, first round Mayhems aren't the problem, first draw Mayhems are. Even if I have to put off playing it for two or three turns, nine times out of ten, I'm going to get a chance to play my Mayhem within the first third of the game for at least a +5-6 if I draw it. Thus, I don't think simply restricting doms being played in the first turn is enough - you either have to make sure Mayhem cannot be played before the game has begun moving, or you have to nerf Mayhem itself.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #69 on:** January 12, 2012, 02:21:01 AM »

I don't know that I agree with first round mayhem being a huge problem. The problem with FTM is that player one gets to develop his territory, make an RA, and then gain a huge card advantage before the opponent can do anything but play Guardian and whatever he's able to shed on a single block. It also completely negates the benefit of going second by turning a rescue second/card advantage tradeoff into a rescue second/card disadvantage.

Intro prep still gives a slight edge to the first player, but more or less mitigates FTM by allowing the second player to develop his territory before he can be Mayhem'd. The first turn amnesty allows the second player to be in control of the FTM, which may actually balance the position of going first v. second.

megamanlan · « **Reply #70 on:** January 15, 2012, 09:16:25 PM »

I'd like to put 2 rule ideas:

1st - Changing 'in play' - You cannot add it to Battle if used in Battle.

2nd - Modifying Redirect - The Redirected Card (varying if Good/Evil) becomes not only as if it was being used by the EC/Hero, but changes what it hurts. (Ex. FaaMS would change to targetting a GE) and a clear def of cards that cannot be Redirected. (Like Draw, Play Next, etc.)

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #71 on:** January 19, 2012, 02:17:02 AM »

I propose a shorter time limit. There's no reason why a deck should perform better in an online version of an official category than in a live version of the same. If for no other reason than that RTS takes much less time to play than real games with automatic shuffling.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #72 on:** January 19, 2012, 04:22:39 AM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on January 19, 2012, 02:17:02 AM

I propose a shorter time limit. There's no reason why a deck should perform better in an online version of an official category than in a live version of the same. If for no other reason than that RTS takes much less time to play than real games with automatic shuffling.

Actually I find that RTS games take me longer than live games because I can't see the cards as well and have to click on them all the time to see what they are/do. Also I think it's nice to have at least 1 category out of 7 that gives defensive-heavy decks a chance to succeed

However, I also think it's a good suggestion for an alternative rule to try for a month, so I added it to the list.

Red · « **Reply #73 on:** January 20, 2012, 05:12:48 PM »

I propose that we play Redemption by the rules of the game with no additions subtractions or edits for at least three months of a year for once please...

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #74 on:** January 20, 2012, 05:58:48 PM »

ROOT is the best mechanism for determining which rules should become "rules of the game." Everyone agrees something needs to change, but not everyone agrees on the solution. Using ROOT to test options makes improving the game much more feasible.

News:

Author Topic: Ideas for future ROOT rulechange experiments. (Read 76287 times)

Chronic Apathy

Chronic Apathy

Chronic Apathy

Chronic Apathy

Chronic Apathy

Chronic Apathy

Chronic Apathy

Chronic Apathy