Author Topic: Ideas for future ROOT rulechange experiments. (Read 76669 times)

megamanlan · « **Reply #125 on:** March 19, 2012, 10:25:54 PM »

How about a month were players can use Fan-made cards but they have to have at least 10 real cards in their deck (other than LS's) And no fan-made LS's.
How's that for an idea?

Jmbeers · « **Reply #126 on:** March 19, 2012, 10:40:18 PM »

you could limit it to serious cards that get a 5+ or more in monthly card submission galleries. That way the cards wouldn't be OP but yet still playable.

But who Is going to add all of these cards to there RTS just so they can be played with a few times and then forgotten?

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #127 on:** March 19, 2012, 10:41:23 PM »

Quote from: megamanlan on March 19, 2012, 10:25:54 PM

How about a month were players can use Fan-made cards but they have to have at least 10 real cards in their deck (other than LS's) And no fan-made LS's.
How's that for an idea?

I think using Fan-made cards would probably be better for a side tournament run exclusively for that purpose rather than ROOT. However, I'm pretty sure that the next tournament won't be running any new variants so that people can get used to the new rules that just came out.

Jmbeers · « **Reply #128 on:** March 19, 2012, 11:08:18 PM »

Quote from: theselfevident on February 19, 2012, 03:00:52 PM

Why not have two types of tourneys. 1 ~~Round Robin~~ one Sweedish & the other more bracket style with best 2-out-of-3 match-ups per week, that way you can thin it a little and appease both styles.

Prof is this or something like it still being considered as a possibility?

megamanlan · « **Reply #129 on:** March 20, 2012, 12:25:19 AM »

I would probably think of it to be only serious cards but I'm not so sure that I want a +5 because that can cause a lot of cards to be dropped. (Maybe like a +2)
Also, u can just use CEC to add ur cards into RTS.

I was thinking of hosting a tournament like that, but thought I'd suggest it here first, and maybe get some others that would help me w/ the tourney.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #130 on:** March 20, 2012, 12:30:09 AM »

Quote from: Jmbeers on March 19, 2012, 11:08:18 PM

Prof is this or something like it still being considered as a possibility?

It is possible that someday we'll try another ROOT split with either a "round robin" or "best 2-of-3 bracket" system. But I wouldn't expect it to happen before next fall.

Realistically there are only 2 more ROOTs left in this tournament season. The April/early May one will probably be without any variations to adjust to the new rules. The late May/June one will probably include 1 variation that is chosen by the players in a poll. But I doubt that option would be the most popular of the choices that will be offered. Of course I could be wrong

Quote from: megamanlan on March 20, 2012, 12:25:19 AM

I was thinking of hosting a tournament like that, but thought I'd suggest it here first, and maybe get some others that would help me w/ the tourney.

I think it would be great for you to host that, and see if there's much interest in it. If so, it is possible that we could wrap it into ROOT in the future. We did that with a T2 variation for a while (although I think that died off since then).

megamanlan · « **Reply #131 on:** March 20, 2012, 01:36:47 AM »

Yea, I've always wanted to make my idea of a Revelation theme and use it in a tournament. And I'll bet that others would love to do that too. But I'm not sure I could have any prizes... (seeing as I don't have any) but it would be cool to have some backing or have it like that.
I could even suggest having a Fan-set made so people wouldn't have to make some cards on CEC. I might do it next month and see how the idea runs.
(I'm too busy right now to do it.)

RTSmaniac · « **Reply #132 on:** March 27, 2012, 10:21:50 AM »

I also am in favor of trying best 2 out of 3 but i dont see how we can implement a 15 card sideboard into the RTS program without using the honor system?

How would you incorporate a 15 sideboard into the game? and why does it have to be 15?

and my proposed rule change:
All Evil Characters gain TAUNT
If Heros have no access to a LS before battle begins: Evil Characters may attack Opponents Land of Redemption. If attack is successful, holder may take a rescued soul from opponent and place in holder's Land of Redemption.

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #133 on:** March 27, 2012, 10:27:15 AM »

The Taunt rule seems really extreme to me. I'd prefer something more like, "If your opponent has no Lost Souls in play, an evil character may taunt. If Taunt is successful or goes unchallenged, you may place a Lost Soul from your Land of Bondage and place it in opponent's Land of Bondage for two rounds."

Professoralstad · « **Reply #134 on:** March 27, 2012, 12:42:14 PM »

Is there any consideration of using the Restricted Format for either next ROOT or the one after? Rob suggested he really wanted some tournament hosts to try it, but I know a lot of players are hoping that their hosts won't implement it (understandably, especially for people with only a few tournaments in their area). Since ROOT is free, and has representatives from all around the country, it seems like it would be an ideal place to test it.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #135 on:** March 27, 2012, 12:57:45 PM »

Quote from: Professoralstad on March 27, 2012, 12:42:14 PM

Is there any consideration of using the Restricted Format for either next ROOT or the one after?

That is a good point. This next ROOT will be with the standard rules to allow people to get used to them. However the following ROOT will have a variation. We were planning on allowing the players to vote on it, however per Rob's wishes, it might be best to just do the Restricted Format and see how it goes. I'll talk with Chronic about it and see what he thinks

New Raven BR · « **Reply #136 on:** August 01, 2012, 01:53:29 AM »

i have a suggestion: make ROOT available for people who can't use RTS to be allowed to play however possible, such as, yahoo im, aim, facebook, skype, or however possible

Professoralstad · « **Reply #137 on:** August 01, 2012, 09:16:54 AM »

Quote from: New Raven BR on August 01, 2012, 01:53:29 AM

i have a suggestion: make ROOT available for people who can't use RTS to be allowed to play however possible, such as, yahoo im, aim, facebook, skype, or however possible

While we definitely encourage as many people to play as possible, we can't force people to use those programs which make games long and often cumbersome when RTS has been the standard for years. Which means someone using just AIM or similar would have to be forced to forfeit when someone doesn't want to use that program. That wouldn't be fair to anyone.

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

JohnChristensen · « **Reply #138 on:** August 01, 2012, 11:39:51 AM »

I think it would be fun to play under the "Type 3" rules for a month. For those who have not seen the thread, Type 3 is a Type 1 version of Type 2. The decks must be a minimum of 60 cards with balanced offence and defense. However, the number of each card in a deck still follows type 1 rules. One AoCP per 50... This would force everyone, including myself to build a new deck from the ground up.

John

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #139 on:** August 01, 2012, 11:57:41 AM »

I added it to the list. Doesn't Type 3 also play to 6 LSs?

jbeers285 · « **Reply #140 on:** August 01, 2012, 12:56:10 PM »

Has anyone considered the idea Jerome had awhile back about allowing multiple generics in type-1 decks?

Jmbeers · « **Reply #141 on:** August 01, 2012, 01:33:04 PM »

The idea was to be allowed 2 generics in your first 50 cards and then be allowed to add another generic for every 50 after that. (50 card deck, may have 2 generics... 100 card, 3... 150 card 4)

Also on restricted. Type 3 isn't a min of 60, it's a lock at 60. You cannot have any more or any less. And yes the game is to 6.

JohnChristensen · « **Reply #142 on:** August 01, 2012, 03:41:56 PM »

Quote from: Jmbeers on August 01, 2012, 01:33:04 PM

The idea was to be allowed 2 generics in your first 50 cards and then be allowed to add another generic for every 50 after that. (50 card deck, may have 2 generics... 100 card, 3... 150 card 4)

Also on restricted. Type 3 isn't a min of 60, it's a lock at 60. You cannot have any more or any less. And yes the game is to 6.

I must have misread the thread on T3, I missed the lock on 60 cards. That might make it better... Anyway, I forgot the addition of the extra soul. Also I believe the Dom Cap in T3 is still the number of LS in deck.

Drrek · « **Reply #143 on:** August 01, 2012, 03:46:46 PM »

Quote from: JohnChristensen on August 01, 2012, 03:41:56 PM

Quote from: Jmbeers on August 01, 2012, 01:33:04 PM
The idea was to be allowed 2 generics in your first 50 cards and then be allowed to add another generic for every 50 after that. (50 card deck, may have 2 generics... 100 card, 3... 150 card 4)

Also on restricted. Type 3 isn't a min of 60, it's a lock at 60. You cannot have any more or any less. And yes the game is to 6.

I must have misread the thread on T3, I missed the lock on 60 cards. That might make it better... Anyway, I forgot the addition of the extra soul. Also I believe the Dom Cap in T3 is still the number of LS in deck.

The Dom cap is a global rule, so it does apply to type 3 the same way it does to all other types.

jbeers285 · « **Reply #144 on:** November 28, 2012, 03:03:57 PM »

i propose being able to have up to 2 copies of any generics in a t1 deck

theselfevident · « **Reply #145 on:** June 10, 2013, 10:25:28 PM »

Here's an rule change idea, limit the number of characters you can put in play in a turn to 3... =)

or limit the number of characters you can put in play to 3 except by special ability in a turn...

theselfevident · « **Reply #146 on:** June 11, 2013, 06:00:46 PM »

is this still a live thread?

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #147 on:** June 11, 2013, 11:02:31 PM »

Quote from: theselfevident on June 11, 2013, 06:00:46 PM

is this still a live thread?

Yes it is. I consider all ideas that are posted here. I don't guarantee that we'll do them all, but as you can see from the opening post, we have done a lot of them

RTSmaniac · « **Reply #148 on:** June 12, 2013, 05:56:58 PM »

I like the idea that you cant attack with a character the first turn its put into play, unless an ability lets you of course.

jbeers285 · « **Reply #149 on:** June 12, 2013, 06:25:15 PM »

Quote from: RTSmaniac on June 12, 2013, 05:56:58 PM

I like the idea that you cant attack with a character the first turn its put into play, unless an ability lets you of course.

I like this idea a lot but would like it more if we banned TGT from that tourney style. I am afraid preblock blowing up of EC's would be to easy.
By ability do u banding? so i could band from hand still or r u talking about not even allowing someone to band in unless they have been in play for a turn?

Another idea I have would be negate all FBTN characters and ignore CBI CBP and CBN so everything is negatable

News:

Author Topic: Ideas for future ROOT rulechange experiments. (Read 76669 times)

Chronic Apathy