Author Topic: Ideas for future ROOT rulechange experiments. (Read 76307 times)

SomeKittens · « **Reply #75 on:** January 20, 2012, 05:59:17 PM »

Quote from: Red 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...

Quote from: Prof Underwood on December 28, 2011, 02:52:41 PM

- A month with NO rule modifications. (This WILL happen sometime this spring)

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #76 on:** January 23, 2012, 08:13:09 PM »

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.

I'm against this suggestion. The 2 hour time limit allows people who want to to use larger decks that would time out in normal tournaments, and I don't think that such decks are used often enough to warrant the time limit. In the meantime, all this would do is reduce the friendly nature of ROOT, since nobody wants a time-out, and anyone who takes a while to make decisions (and there are a few people like that in ROOT) could theoretically be accused of stalling. Additionally, it would just encourage speed decks.

Quote from: Red 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...

I don't think we need three months of this. Honestly, it's a relief to be able to play ROOT without fearing a FTM most of the time.

Red · « **Reply #77 on:** January 23, 2012, 08:15:06 PM »

Quote from: Chronic Apathy on January 23, 2012, 08:13:09 PM

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.

I'm against this suggestion. The 2 hour time limit allows people who want to to use larger decks that would time out in normal tournaments, and I don't think that such decks are used often enough to warrant the time limit. In the meantime, all this would do is reduce the friendly nature of ROOT, since nobody wants a time-out, and anyone who takes a while to make decisions (and there are a few people like that in ROOT) could theoretically be accused of stalling. Additionally, it would just encourage speed decks.

Quote from: Red 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...

I don't think we need three months of this. Honestly, it's a relief to be able to play ROOT without fearing a FTM most of the time.

If I ran this tournament it would be only current rules. If it's an RNRS catagory play it by the proper rules. Not all these jacked up rule modifactions.

lp670sv · « **Reply #78 on:** January 23, 2012, 08:17:35 PM »

ROOT gives us the chance to test out possible rule changes. For the community to compete in a form of playtesting. I'm for that.

SomeKittens · « **Reply #79 on:** January 23, 2012, 08:47:09 PM »

I usually need more time to figure out which cards are where, so longer times are good for people like me.

Quote from: lp670sv on January 23, 2012, 08:17:35 PM

ROOT gives us the chance to test out possible rule changes. For the community to compete in a form of playtesting. I'm for that.

This. It gives a bit of fun.

megamanlan · « **Reply #80 on:** January 23, 2012, 10:35:13 PM »

How about a rule of u can only rescue 1 LS/round but then u can play NJ to an Opponents SoG?

SomeKittens · « **Reply #81 on:** January 23, 2012, 11:14:56 PM »

Quote from: megamanlan on January 23, 2012, 10:35:13 PM

How about a rule of u can only rescue 1 LS/round but then u can play NJ to an Opponents SoG?

That might be a bit clunky. How about you can only rescue LS from one source (Heroes, Enhancements, Dominants) per round?

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #82 on:** January 23, 2012, 11:15:39 PM »

What enhancements rescue souls?

SomeKittens · « **Reply #83 on:** January 23, 2012, 11:16:10 PM »

Primary Objective.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #84 on:** January 23, 2012, 11:21:19 PM »

Quote from: SomeKittens on January 23, 2012, 11:16:10 PM

Primary Objective.

The player rescues the soul not PO.

megamanlan · « **Reply #85 on:** January 23, 2012, 11:32:10 PM »

That's kinda what I said, but it's also stopping NJ, so no SoG/NJ.

I like the idea of 1 LS rescued/round because then Opponent can't slap SoG/NJ down immediately after rescuing a LS to win, which I find quite cheap, I play it when I get both.

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #86 on:** January 24, 2012, 12:17:53 AM »

Quote from: Red on January 23, 2012, 08:15:06 PM

If I ran this tournament it would be only current rules. If it's an RNRS catagory play it by the proper rules. Not all these jacked up rule modifactions.

To be entirely frank though, you don't run it. Furthermore, from what I can gather, the general community that plays ROOT is generally in favor of experimenting with rule changes (or at least understand and tolerate it). If anyone else who's active in ROOT (or anyone who doesn't play ROOT specifically because of the rule experiments) wants to chime in and voice any concerns they have, feel free. I don't promise that anything will change, since I pretty much let Underwood run ROOT, and I have no idea if using it for rule changes might even be something Rob has asked for. Of course though, hearing feedback from the participants is important. In the meantime though, ROOT will be run the way it's been run since the season started. Bear in mind that Underwood has already promised one month rule-change free, so that's something for you to look forward to.

megamanlan · « **Reply #87 on:** January 24, 2012, 01:26:39 AM »

I agree. I like experimenting w/ new rules because I think that some of the current ones are not that good (i.e. Protect becoming a battle-Ender, Ignore not being a battle-Ender, Dom decks etc.)

If u want to have an online tournament w/o rule changes, u can always use Hamachi and I don't think to many people will mind either. But complaining here won't get anyone any further.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #88 on:** January 24, 2012, 01:41:07 AM »

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on January 23, 2012, 11:21:19 PM

Quote from: SomeKittens on January 23, 2012, 11:16:10 PM
Primary Objective.

The player rescues the soul not PO.

PO rescues the soul. Just as Dove instructs a player to Discard a card from hand or battle, it's still Dove that's discarding.

Red · « **Reply #89 on:** January 24, 2012, 08:28:52 AM »

I use ROOT for practice in case Nationals in a location I can attend. If it's always "exeperiments" Then the practice is worthless. I'm honestly considering sitting out next month if there is another exeperiment.

lp670sv · « **Reply #90 on:** January 24, 2012, 10:22:36 AM »

Quote from: Red on January 24, 2012, 08:28:52 AM

I use ROOT for practice in case Nationals in a location I can attend. If it's always "exeperiments" Then the practice is worthless. I'm honestly considering sitting out next month if there is another exeperiment.

You are aware you can play RTS games outside of ROOT right? With whatever rules you choose?

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #91 on:** January 24, 2012, 10:44:15 AM »

Quote from: Red on January 24, 2012, 08:28:52 AM

I use ROOT for practice in case Nationals in a location I can attend. If it's always "experiments" Then the practice is worthless.

I understand your point, and it is likely that there will not be "experiments" once we get close to Nats (ie. summer months). However, I disagree that these rule changes make your games worthless for practice. First of all, they are simply a great way to get games against top players from around the country that you probably wouldn't get otherwise. This is an opportunity to see some different kinds of decks than your local playgroup may be running. It also is a way to pick up on some ways of using cards that you may not have thought of yourself.

And as for the rule changes themselves, it can be a good way to test your deck under sub-optimal conditions. Pretend you are playing a speed deck that wants to rescue 1st turn every game and play dominants at will. Well out of your 10 games at Nats, you'll probably have 1 where you don't draw any heroes or dominants on the 1st turn. Can your deck win without making a rescue attempt or playing dominants on the 1st turn? This month is your chance to find out. And pretend that you're NOT playing a deck that depends on that. Then this month's rule change doesn't affect you at all anyway. Either way, it's NOT worthless.

theselfevident · « **Reply #92 on:** January 24, 2012, 04:09:32 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on January 24, 2012, 10:44:15 AM

Quote from: Red on January 24, 2012, 08:28:52 AM
I use ROOT for practice in case Nationals in a location I can attend. If it's always "experiments" Then the practice is worthless.
I understand your point, and it is likely that there will not be "experiments" once we get close to Nats (ie. summer months). However, I disagree that these rule changes make your games worthless for practice. First of all, they are simply a great way to get games against top players from around the country that you probably wouldn't get otherwise. This is an opportunity to see some different kinds of decks than your local playgroup may be running. It also is a way to pick up on some ways of using cards that you may not have thought of yourself.

And as for the rule changes themselves, it can be a good way to test your deck under sub-optimal conditions. Pretend you are playing a speed deck that wants to rescue 1st turn every game and play dominants at will. Well out of your 10 games at Nats, you'll probably have 1 where you don't draw any heroes or dominants on the 1st turn. Can your deck win without making a rescue attempt or playing dominants on the 1st turn? This month is your chance to find out. And pretend that you're NOT playing a deck that depends on that. Then this month's rule change doesn't affect you at all anyway. Either way, it's NOT worthless.

I agree with profu. on all these points

SomeKittens · « **Reply #93 on:** January 24, 2012, 06:09:09 PM »

Elder Dragon Highlander:
100 card minimum, no multiples allowed.

lp670sv · « **Reply #94 on:** January 24, 2012, 06:14:08 PM »

Quote from: SomeKittens on January 24, 2012, 06:09:09 PM

Elder Dragon Highlander:
100 card minimum, no multiples allowed.

Do we also have to kill each other after every game? THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!

theselfevident · « **Reply #95 on:** January 24, 2012, 06:32:06 PM »

Quote from: lp670sv on January 24, 2012, 06:14:08 PM

Quote from: SomeKittens on January 24, 2012, 06:09:09 PM
Elder Dragon Highlander:
100 card minimum, no multiples allowed.

Do we also have to kill each other after every game? THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!

Only via beheading...

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #96 on:** January 28, 2012, 07:02:14 PM »

Quote from: Red on January 24, 2012, 08:28:52 AM

I use ROOT for practice in case Nationals in a location I can attend. If it's always "exeperiments" Then the practice is worthless. I'm honestly considering sitting out next month if there is another exeperiment.

I disagree entirely that the practice is worthless when experiments are used. A lot of the time, they don't even really impact a game that much, and when they do, as Underwood said, it's good to test decks under different conditions, since every experiment we've used thus far could happen in a regular game (more or less). Plus, keep in mind that the reason we're testing a lot of these ideas is to implement at least one of them, quite possibly during this season. Regular play might not even be "regular" if the powers at be make a decision about this in the next four or five months.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #97 on:** February 11, 2012, 05:10:43 PM »

I suggest that the next tournament be as many rounds as possible. Participation is way up, and even this month with 6 rounds the 3rd place winner only won 1/3 of his games, and everyone not in the top 3 lost at least 3. I know that's not uncommon at tournaments, but I support anything that lessens the likelihood that the winner and 2nd place have never played each other, or other such.

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #98 on:** February 12, 2012, 01:02:54 AM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on February 11, 2012, 05:10:43 PM

I suggest that the next tournament be as many rounds as possible. Participation is way up, and even this month with 6 rounds the 3rd place winner only won 1/3 of his games, and everyone not in the top 3 lost at least 3. I know that's not uncommon at tournaments, but I support anything that lessens the likelihood that the winner and 2nd place have never played each other, or other such.

I think the number of rounds of each month should be directly proportional to what they would be in a normal tournament (minimum of 4 weeks). I dislike having six weeks (even though it allowed me to come back to get third place this month), because it causes situations like the one a couple months ago when there were three people at the top with the same score, all of whom had won against one of those three and lost against the other, and it came down to differential (which actually let me win). I think having more rounds than necessary according to the current rules just overcomplicates things. Now that said, I happen to know that Underwood really enjoys having longer months, and that this next 'month' will likely go to the end of March (6 weeks again).

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #99 on:** February 12, 2012, 09:45:27 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on February 11, 2012, 05:10:43 PM

the 3rd place winner only ~~won~~ lost 1/3 of his games

FTFY

As for the number of games, it is actually a balancing game to determine the number of rounds for ROOT. The current number of players regularly participating requires 5 rounds. I'm personally pretty committed to playing 1 more round than is required to make it more likely that the winner has to play the top competition (ie. this month's champion played #2, 3, 4, 7, 13, 19). This makes 6 games, which also works out well to be about a month and a half of time (allowing 2 tournaments every 3 months).

The only way to get more game in would be to either make the tournament last even longer, or to play more than 1 game each week. Both of these ideas seem like they would actually DECREASE participation with ROOT. Many people have a hard time committing to something that lasts longer than a month (since their schedule might be quite different in the future and get in the way). In fact, ROOT traditionally has only been 1 month long, and we're already doing an extended schedule. Making it longer, also makes people have to wait longer before joining the next one. And as for playing multiple games in a week, many people have commented that they felt like they were able to join BECAUSE it was only 1 game a week. If ROOT was a bigger time commitment, it would probably also lose people.

Chronic guessed correctly that the Feb/March ROOT will be going to the end of March. This will be a new record length of 7 weeks (assuming I'm counting the calendar correctly), but I think that is probably the best option because there is a good chance that there will be a lot of players who have spring break during this time and will be unable to get in at least 1 of those games. But since school schedules are different everywhere, it is impossible to plan around that. Therefore, if we make the tournament a bit longer, it will give people more of a chance to come back from missing a week and taking a ghost that week.

However, the following ROOT tournament (April/June) will probably return to 6 weeks long (unless we hit 33 players participating).

News:

Author Topic: Ideas for future ROOT rulechange experiments. (Read 76307 times)

Chronic Apathy

Chronic Apathy

Chronic Apathy

Chronic Apathy