Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Didn't see this topic so I thought I would start it.

LOVE this format. 
My favorite version of T1 by far.
More strategy, more deckbuilding options and less luck.
Only drawback I saw was time constraints.

Definitely the best route if you ignore time issues. I was never a big fan of the sideboard, but it turned out to be pretty cool.

Best 2/3: 5 Stars
Sideboard: 4 Stars

Yeah, I'd love to see Top Cut best 2/3, though if we were to do that, I'd like to mention that the time limit would be for 3 games, not for each game individually. For example, a 100 minute time limit for 2/3 match instead of 45/45/45. That adds strategy of knowing when to scoop and hope you can still win the match.

From the perspective of the person running the tournament it was pretty pretty discouraging.  At the beginning everyone was excited, and we had a great crew of people signed up.  But as the tournament wore on, 5 players dropped out and 3 more skipped games.  That was more than half the players in the tournament.

The 2/3 format was fun, and did add some strategy to the game.  But the time requirements of it were just too daunting for most people.  I'll be glad to return to a simple 1 game per week format next week, and hopefully more people will return to play again.

MKC I enjoy root and try to play as much as possible I even take pick up games, I was unable to make time for 2-3 hour long root games. I was initially excited about siding but it doesn't seem feasible for ROOT much less large tournaments. I believe it adds some level of strategy but it seems the only real difference is people trying to create site lock on occasion and play some counters that don't get a lot of play.

Not sure it's worth all the extra work.

I should have just dropped out as well but i like playing so I wanted to try and make it happen I havnt played since week 1 or 2 I can't remember which week was my last.

Best 2/3 was great!

Now on the other hand.... imo sideboarding was a disaster.

Note ive been playing in the lower half of the circuit the whole time. What I found was players were using either HUGEGEGEGEGE Decks (Andrew im talking about you) to abuse the sideboarding system which is kind of stupid since with a large deck what do you need a sideboard for? If a player wasnt using a large deck then they didnt really know how to properly sideboard or sideboard "creatively" might be a better way to put it. Really though my qualms are not with the concept of best 2/3 sideboarding but my problem is with players not knowing how to sideboard :p

Quote from: Master KChief on February 18, 2013, 05:38:41 PM

Unless you're just stating random obvious facts, this happens with ROOT 99% of the time, regardless of what format it's played in. Correlation does not imply causation.

Feb/Mar 2012 - 19 players (3 dropped)
Apr/May 2012 - 20 players (3 dropped)
May/Jun 2012 - 13 players (3 dropped)
Jun/Jul 2012 - 8 players (0 dropped)
Sep/Oct 2012 - 8 players (0 dropped)
Oct/Nov 2012 - 17 players (1 dropped)
Dec/Jan 2013 - 13 players (2 dropped)
Jan/Feb 2013 - 14 players (5 dropped)

So this is NOT what happens 99% of the time in ROOT.  Actually it happens less than 0% of the time (to quote your other famous statistic).

So you're trying to suggest players don't drop from ROOT? Almost every single month? The statistic clearly approaching 100% of the time, except for 2 outlier turnouts where you had record lows of ROOT participation? Ok.

I don't think we've ever had this many people drop out, nor have we had this % of players drop out. 

I'm more than sure if you looked easy enough you would find many cases where this statement is blatantly false. 99% is also a figure of speech in most cases...but oh, that's right, it escaped me you take most everything (99%?) at literal face value instead of deciphering around the social vernacular.

And some of the players have specifically mentioned that their reason for dropping was because of the increased time commitment required.  So that would be causation.

2 out of 5 players have directly related increased time towards the reason they dropped out, an aspect reflected upon heavily before the tournament even started. If someone joined but dropped because of their lack of commitment towards time despite viewing the numerous warnings, then they should have never joined in the first place. Coupled with the fact people drop from ROOT almost every single month, there really is no case for causation.

I know you love this format, and it's kinda your baby, and as I mentioned, I do like the added strategy that it brings to the game.  But it is important to also take into consideration the negative side effects of this format.

First of all, it's not 'my baby', nor is it anyone elses here, so let's try to strike that from your head before you run around with that sophomoric thought again. Its a concept borrowed from years of other games doing it right. Best of 1 games are completely senseless and asinine and only further perpetuates the person who can get the luckiest hands. No thanks.

When I take into consideration if the aspect of time being a negative aspect, I can't help but laugh inside when I ask the same exact question to the people that play the other CCG powerhouses. It's like saying salty and sweet is a negative aspect of chicken and waffles potato chips...it is what it most obviously is, and comparably most everyone can adequately comprehend that a best 2 of 3 game will naturally take longer than a best of 1 game. It's an aspect more than worth it's investment to curb the sacky players that rely on blind luck or rogue decks that experience very few mained counters from the meta in their games.

I suggest an initiative to change the game where a best 2 of 3 can fit adequately under the 45 minute window. Perhaps cutting SoG/NJ completely and going to 3 per game would speed it up?

I think that some people were just excited about the idea of the format and thought at first that they would have time to play that way.  But as the month went on they realized just what a big time commitment it was, and became overwhelmed.  It's a classic case of biting off more than you can chew.  You can criticize them all you like, but I understand where they're coming from.

Actually, how is time possibly an issue with best 2 of 3 when the time limit didn't even change? Was 2 hours still not the allotted time for best 2 of 3 format, as it has been the same for how many months now? You would only have a case if the allowable time was increased. This clearly wasn't the case. /logic

Now you've moved on from criticizing the players to criticizing the game of Redemption itself. 

The majority of every discussion always comes back around to how to possibly salvage the transgressions this game has driven itself into, how to make the game better as a whole. Do you honestly expect the game to fix itself without the people that actively criticize its faults?

Remind me ... why do you play this game?

Because global warming has increased steadily over the past century. I would ask you the same thing, but I really wouldn't want you to mistake a completely irrelevant question towards the discussion as a proper rebuttal.

My understanding was that each of the the 3 games got the full 2 hours, so that made for a much longer set of games.

Not sure if serious or trolling. Trying to suggest a complete game could potentially take up to 6 hours is completely absurd.

Apparently people were understanding the rules on timing this month in different ways.

If by 'people' you strictly mean yourself, then your understanding is not on par with what the status quo and actual rules dictate.

No but there's a difference between someone who is:
     - generally positive about the game, but also points out potential problems and solutions
     or
     - generally negative about the game and says that it is "completely senseless and asinine"

The first person is helpful and appreciated.  The second person is getting on my nerves.

I do sorely hope you are not trying to reference yourself away as the first person. There's a difference between staying positive and pointing out problems with applicable solutions (not 'LOL guyz lets play Gifts format and push Super Turtlez!), and staying positive thinking EVERY SINGLE ENTITY WITHIN THE GAME IS A FLUFFY RAINBOW. These types of people are not in the least bit helpful nor conducive towards anything at all, and merely hope to sugarcoat the problems rather than address them head on. Pass.

Concerning the Negative Nancy you're attempting to paint, I suggest you reread and create an assertion germane to what was actually stated instead of deciding to mince words yet again.

Quote from: Prof Underwood on February 19, 2013, 08:49:54 AM

My understanding was that each of the the 3 games got the full 2 hours, so that made for a much longer set of games.

Not sure if serious or trolling. Trying to suggest a complete game could potentially take up to 6 hours is completely absurd.

While that may be absurd for most people, I've played enough games against Mark, and whiteness end enough of his games, to know that it's no stretch to think each of his 3 games would take 2 hours.

Quote from: Gabe on February 19, 2013, 10:06:41 AM

While that may be absurd for most people, I've played enough games against Mark, and whiteness end enough of his games, to know that it's no stretch to think each of his 3 games would take 2 hours.

That is not at all what I'm saying is absurd (albeit rightfully so). I'm saying its absurd for anyone to buy that the total time allotted for ROOT this month per match is 6 hours total.

I was under the impression that I would potentially have to invest 6 hours of my time per week not counting deck build or swap time.  So I passed on the tourney though I found the sideboarding and 2/3 intriguing.   There definitely appears that there were different time expectations.

Lack of clarity reels its ugly head again. Again, I see no reason to assume the total time would be 6 hours since it was explicitly stated absolutely nowhere, coupled with the fact the status quo and actual rules say otherwise.

The rules say "2 hours per game".  Best 2 of 3 is playing 2 or 3 games, so everyone, me included, assumed that each game gets the full time allotment.  2 1/2 years ago when we were doing a ROOT game, a challenge game, and up to 2 bonus games each week, each of those games had a separate time limit. 

-----

I liked the obvious strength of best 2 of 3/sideboard: to mitigate luck and have a more strategic matchup.  Ideally, I guess Redemption would always use these formats.  Unfortunately, the time to invest in possibly 3 games was too much. 

I also was disappointed at the dropping out epidemic, especially by those who lobbied for best 2 of 3/sideboard back in December.  It's pretty evident in the recent participation that this ROOT session was by far the worst recently, in terms of dropping out.  I know I won't do best 2 of 3/sideboard again in a future ROOT.  I'm not saying anything against those who loved and appreciated the format; just that it's not for me.

The rules say "2 hours per game".  Best 2 of 3 is playing 2 or 3 games, so everyone, me included, assumed that each game gets the full time allotment.  2 1/2 years ago when we were doing a ROOT game, a challenge game, and up to 2 bonus games each week, each of those games had a separate time limit.

A 'game' in Redemption has always equated to the entire match between 2 people, regardless of how many games are played within that match. Separate games with different people would obviously get the full time per game since it's a completely different match.