Author Topic: Breaking the game? (Read 41311 times)

BubbleBoy · « **Reply #25 on:** January 29, 2009, 10:35:48 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on January 29, 2009, 10:19:19 PM

Under their theory, each Momentum Change would allow the other to be picked up, therefore you could pick up ALL your cards on EVERY block and play the exact same combination every time.

It isn't that simple; I mean, first of all you have to have init, and what if your opp has Helmet of Brass or Angel's Sword or even is 1/1 or something? Also, every time you do that combo, the EC you use dies, so you don't have a completely unlimited number of times you can do this, even with Unleavened Bread or whatever, and if you can't get through your opp's defense, you might be screwed.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #26 on:** January 29, 2009, 10:44:03 PM »

You dont have an infinite amount anyway. Only 6 times.

Well, what is breaking the game? Anyting that constantly wins in a little to no contest game and has no sufficient in game counters that are in viable deck use.

The Schaef · « **Reply #27 on:** January 29, 2009, 11:48:31 PM »

Quote from: BubbleBoy on January 29, 2009, 10:35:48 PM

It isn't that simple; I mean, first of all you have to have init, and what if your opp has Helmet of Brass or Angel's Sword or even is 1/1 or something? Also, every time you do that combo, the EC you use dies, so you don't have a completely unlimited number of times you can do this, even with Unleavened Bread or whatever, and if you can't get through your opp's defense, you might be screwed.

Again, the Sadducee defense was just an example, but since you asked, Unleavened Bread can be used on a large EC to bring back the small ones constantly, who get initiative almost 100% of the time with Crown of Thorns active, and it's not like you need an infinite number of turns anyway, the game will end eventually. For whatever amount of uses of Bread you think is "reasonable", just add another Bread and multiply them. And getting through an opponent's defense will be easier if I only need to use one combo 80 billion times on defense, so the worst that will happen is I will time out the game by dragging it out.

Quote from: Janissary on January 29, 2009, 10:44:03 PM

You dont have an infinite amount anyway. Only 6 times.

Under the correct ruling, five. Under the ruling they are supposing, it is infinite. If you don't understand why, go back to the beginning and read again.

Scottie_ffgamer · « **Reply #28 on:** January 29, 2009, 11:52:57 PM »

To me, what happens in Redemption is the best of any card game I've heard of. I recently had a lengthy discussion with my brother who plays Magic the Gathering. He told me (among many other things) how the 'big wigs' of that game simply ban cards from tournaments because of their strength. Rather than deal with the monstrosity they accidentally created (by not recognizing the potential of the card before hand) in a way that is harder, more complex, but also more logical (like making more cards specifically against it or coming up with good reasons why it should to be ruled differently) they simply ban the card. Now, I don't know about you, but when I heard that, it gave me just one more reason to enjoy Redemption. Not only do I get to enjoy the company of other religious people throughout the country and the world who enjoy the same things I do, but I also have great people in charge that are trying their hardest to make it all make sense.

How outraged would we all be if Rob came out and said, "For every official tournament from now on, Momentum Change is banned from being in any deck and being played"? And yet, for some card games, that's what they do. And I think, rather than complaining how something is ruled illegal because it is 'broken' or accuse as to thinking up logical ruling to support such, we should give our head judges props for doing their best at making the game easy, complex, fun, and have it all make sense in the process.

The Quadfather · « **Reply #29 on:** January 30, 2009, 12:44:13 AM »

I like Scottie_ffgamer. His approach is bueno. I am also pleased with Rob's level of intelligence. His brilliance has caused Redemption to carry on for over a decade and still going strong. I understand that certain gifted individuals can come up with diabolical combos that fry simpler brains and the creator takes a certain pride in that. I should know, I came up with the Defenseless deck and it did rather well in it's day - haven't tested it lately, but whatever... But, Rob and others in their grand wisdom decide whether these super wonderful combos which are guarenteed to win every game are allowed to stay or not. I have been mesmerized by some of the absolute ingenious combos and methods one uses to win the game (and you all know who you are - G, S, K, R, etc). I simply believe that even tho your super combos are celestial, they must not cause others to lose every single time - thus reducing morale amongst gamers and shrinking player numbers. Am I mistaken? Are those who come up with these divine combos entitled to cause noobs and sub noobs to simply give up the game? Give up the money to buy packs? Tho I admire cataclysmic deck designs and acknowledge the intellingence and know how that led to these combos - the game must survive without the top combo designers just ruling the ruins... ...imho...

SirNobody · « **Reply #30 on:** January 30, 2009, 11:27:37 AM »

Hey,

Quote from: Scottie_ffgamer on January 29, 2009, 11:52:57 PM

How outraged would we all be if Rob came out and said, "For every official tournament from now on, Momentum Change is banned from being in any deck and being played"?

I would be thrilled, although there are several cards I'd hope would get banned before momentum change. There are advantages to not banning cards and there are advantages to banning cards. One isn't necessarily better than the other.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #31 on:** January 30, 2009, 11:40:41 AM »

Quote from: SirNobody on January 30, 2009, 11:27:37 AM

There are advantages to not banning cards and there are advantages to banning cards. One isn't necessarily better than the other.

I disagree with my esteemed colleague. The fact that Redemption has never banned a card makes it unique among it's competitors and that has value. If a problem with a game like Redemption arises, then there are 3 ways to solve it. Tweak the rules to stop it, make more cards that stop it, or ban the card that causes it. Other games choose to do the 3rd option, which means that they don't have to go to the trouble to mess with the first 2. This is easier for the game designers, but is worse for the players who now have cards (and perhaps expensive ones) that are now illegal and useless.

Rob has decided to fix problems by doing the first 2 options. This makes more work for him and the playtesters, but is better for the players. People can still use the cards that they bought 10 years ago at a tournament next week. This encourages sales of older sets (which is good for business and makes FooF and RoA tins possible). It also helps prevent price creep which happens in so many other games.

So yes these are different, but I do think that one is better than the other. Rob has chosen to do what is better for the many instead of what is better for the few. And I think that is better overall

SirNobody · « **Reply #32 on:** January 30, 2009, 04:20:54 PM »

Hey,

I'm kinda baffled that you can say that not banning cards is better than banning cards when most major CCG's choose to ban cards. I am not aware of any CCG (albeit I don't have the broadest knowledge of CCGs, but still) other than Redemption that doesn't ban any cards. You'd think that if it was clearly the better option that significantly more CCGs would have tried it.

I consider the following to be advantages of banning cards:

- Less frequent rule changes. There are other contributing factors to this, but Redemption's rules change much more frequently than other CCGs and part of the reason for that is to adapt the rules to deal with cards that otherwise would be banned. It can be very frustrating to a player when the rules seem to change from tournament to tournament and I have known multiple people that quit playing Redemption because it took too much time to keep track of what the rules are.

- Fewer reactive cards, more proactive cards. Over the years cactus has printed many "counter" cards designed to weaken cards that other games would just ban. Sure I don't have a stack of cards that I'm not allowed to play with, instead I have a stack of cards like Pot of Manna, Esther (Promo), The Darkness, and Lurking that I don't really want to play with because they serve very little purpose other than to counter one specific card or idea. Had that card been banned instead of printing a counter to it, it would have opened up spots on printing runs for more proactive cards like A New Beginning, The Amalekites' Slave, or Ambush. Would you rather open a pack and see a new card like Gold Shield, or see a new card like Pot of Manna?

- Less repetitiveness in top decks. 18 decks have placed top 3 at nationals in Type 2 - 2 Player since Provisions was released in June 2003. And 11 of those decks had at least two copies of provisions in them. If Magic had seen the 15 copies of provisions that were in the top three decks the year it was released it would have been immediately banned and players in the five years since would have had to come up with something original and creative, or at least something different to succeed with rather than just recycling the same old ideas.

The not banning cards idea has worked well for Redemption, especially considering the fact that Redemption has such a small card pool compared to other CCGs, but I strongly believe that not banning cards is not an inherently better design philosophy.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

Red · « **Reply #33 on:** January 30, 2009, 05:00:15 PM »

Quote from: SirNobody on January 30, 2009, 04:20:54 PM

Hey,

I'm kinda baffled that you can say that not banning cards is better than banning cards when most major CCG's choose to ban cards. I am not aware of any CCG (albeit I don't have the broadest knowledge of CCGs, but still) other than Redemption that doesn't ban any cards. You'd think that if it was clearly the better option that significantly more CCGs would have tried it.

I consider the following to be advantages of banning cards:

- Less frequent rule changes. There are other contributing factors to this, but Redemption's rules change much more frequently than other CCGs and part of the reason for that is to adapt the rules to deal with cards that otherwise would be banned. It can be very frustrating to a player when the rules seem to change from tournament to tournament and I have known multiple people that quit playing Redemption because it took too much time to keep track of what the rules are.

- Fewer reactive cards, more proactive cards. Over the years cactus has printed many "counter" cards designed to weaken cards that other games would just ban. Sure I don't have a stack of cards that I'm not allowed to play with, instead I have a stack of cards like Pot of Manna, Esther (Promo), The Darkness, and Lurking that I don't really want to play with because they serve very little purpose other than to counter one specific card or idea. Had that card been banned instead of printing a counter to it, it would have opened up spots on printing runs for more proactive cards like A New Beginning, The Amalekites' Slave, or Ambush. Would you rather open a pack and see a new card like Gold Shield, or see a new card like Pot of Manna?

- Less repetitiveness in top decks. 18 decks have placed top 3 at nationals in Type 2 - 2 Player since Provisions was released in June 2003. And 11 of those decks had at least two copies of provisions in them. If Magic had seen the 15 copies of provisions that were in the top three decks the year it was released it would have been immediately banned and players in the five years since would have had to come up with something original and creative, or at least something different to succeed with rather than just recycling the same old ideas.

The not banning cards idea has worked well for Redemption, especially considering the fact that Redemption has such a small card pool compared to other CCGs, but I strongly believe that not banning cards is not an inherently better design philosophy.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

pokemon anser that it dosen't ban cards

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #34 on:** January 30, 2009, 05:06:23 PM »

Quote from: SirNobody on January 30, 2009, 04:20:54 PM

I'm kinda baffled that you can say that not banning cards is better than banning cards when most major CCG's choose to ban cards.

And most major CCG's are no longer in print, or active. Just because everyone else is doing it doesn't make it better. The fact that Cactus is one of a VERY small number of CCG's still in print and active from the 1995 era (despite its niche market and small size) is testament that is has done things right that other CCG's did not.

Quote from: SirNobody on January 30, 2009, 04:20:54 PM

- Less frequent rule changes.

I thought of this, but here's my thinking on this. If a rule changes, it is hard for the people who were used to the old rule. However, people in the future won't know any different, and it won't continue to be a problem. If you ban a card, that problem will remain forever, because no one will ever be able to play it.

Quote from: SirNobody on January 30, 2009, 04:20:54 PM

- Fewer reactive cards, more proactive cards.

Redemption has done a better job lately of combining these two ideas. They have made cards that have helped limit the power of something, while having alternative usefulness when that thing isn't there in your opponent's deck.

Quote from: SirNobody on January 30, 2009, 04:20:54 PM

- Less repetitiveness in top decks.

I doubt that this is really a difference. I would imagine that if you looked at the winning Magic decks from the last 5 years that you would also see a lot of overlap in their card choices.

Red · « **Reply #35 on:** January 30, 2009, 05:09:52 PM »

most CCG'S rotate cards out of the game for turny play

The Guardian · « **Reply #36 on:** January 30, 2009, 05:13:04 PM »

I submit that TimMierz's Genesis/Rome T1 deck is evidence that says Redemption is headed in the right direction in terms of achieving a variety of top-tier decks.

Two years ago, I used 2 T2 decks to win and neither had Provisions in them. Chris M. (who I played in the final round but ended up 4th) didn't use Provisions.

The Schaef · « **Reply #37 on:** January 30, 2009, 05:52:01 PM »

I think Tim's on point by noting the smaller card pool Redemption has available. I would also submit that Redemption doesn't reach quite as far with power cards as other card games. Honestly, even if a ban were instituted tomorrow, I'd be willing to bet that the number of cards that MUST be banned could be counted on one hand (NJ, AoC Promo, maybe Provisions, maybe ANB).

Tim's point about Gold Shield, I think, also makes the point for me that Redemption is already moving away from anti-one-card cards (all of his examples are five years old) and more towards cards that have a benefit to you, but as an ancillary benefit also happen to counter a certain power strategy or another. Gold Shield and Amalekite Slave being prime examples.

SirNobody · « **Reply #38 on:** January 30, 2009, 06:19:14 PM »

Hey,

Quote from: Prof Underwood on January 30, 2009, 05:06:23 PM

And most major CCG's are no longer in print, or active. Just because everyone else is doing it doesn't make it better. The fact that Cactus is one of a VERY small number of CCG's still in print and active from the 1995 era (despite its niche market and small size) is testament that is has done things right that other CCG's did not.

I do not equate longevity with quality. Redemption is not inherently better than other CCGs because it has outlasted them. I consider Redemption's small size and niche market to be as much responsible for it's longevity as it's quality.

Quote

I doubt that this is really a difference. I would imagine that if you looked at the winning Magic decks from the last 5 years that you would also see a lot of overlap in their card choices.

I'm not too familiar with top magic decks, but my understanding of the game in general is that you wouldn't find anywhere near the overlap you find in Redemption. For one thing Magic does cycle cards, so none of the cards that were tournament legal five years ago are tournament legal now. The other thing is that the Redemption player base is willing to put up with stagnant game play a lot more than the player base of other games.

Quote from: The Guardian on January 30, 2009, 05:13:04 PM

Two years ago, I used 2 T2 decks to win and neither had Provisions in them. Chris M. (who I played in the final round but ended up 4th) didn't use Provisions.

Your two decks from 2007 would be two of the three I don't have in my records for T2-2P. If you wanted to e-mail them to me I'd be happy to add them to my site ;-)

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #39 on:** January 30, 2009, 06:31:02 PM »

Quote from: SirNobody on January 30, 2009, 06:19:14 PM

The other thing is that the Redemption player base is willing to put up with stagnant game play a lot more than the player base of other games.

The Redemption player families are also are happier because they don't have kids buying a new pack, opening it, and finding that their one decent card can no longer be played in a tournament.

Gabe · « **Reply #40 on:** January 30, 2009, 06:40:44 PM »

Having played MTG for 10 years I can tell you that in the format (classic) where you can use all the old cards (and many are banned) there is tons of overlap in the cards used by top decks. In fact, every good deck contains many of the same "power" cards, similar to Redemption decks and Dominants only there are more that "must be included" to be competative. I've been out of the loop MTG loop for a few years now but I can only imagine that not much has changed in that respect.

SirNobody · « **Reply #41 on:** January 30, 2009, 06:41:34 PM »

Hey,

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on January 30, 2009, 06:31:02 PM

The Redemption player families are also are happier because they don't have kids buying a new pack, opening it, and finding that their one decent card can no longer be played in a tournament.

I'm not sure that's really an argument in Redemption's favor considering the last time I opened a blue pack I got 7 cards I can no longer play in a tournament (without getting laughed at).

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

The Guardian · « **Reply #42 on:** January 30, 2009, 07:28:58 PM »

Cards in blue packs aren't the problem tho...

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #43 on:** January 30, 2009, 07:39:36 PM »

btw, galadgawyn, Primary Objective has been ruled for, and red_dragon_thorn (I forget if he's changed his name now) had built a theoretical deck that can do it. everybody said that it's perfectly legal, but impossible to get. so, this deck has been ruled legal. go ahead and use it wherever you want.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #44 on:** January 30, 2009, 08:04:29 PM »

Quote from: RED on January 30, 2009, 05:00:15 PM

pokemon anser that it dosen't ban cards

You cannot use any of the old Wizard of the Coast cards in tournaments. I would consider that banned.

Red · « **Reply #45 on:** January 30, 2009, 08:26:55 PM »

you can't use 2006 cards ether because they rotate

darkvariant · « **Reply #46 on:** January 30, 2009, 09:14:47 PM »

OK for all those harping on Mtg and set rotation, there are multiple formats, where the set rotations are as follows:

Block Constructed: Only the latest block of cards can be used
Standard: The last core set and 2 blocks
Extended: The last 7 years of Material
Legacy:eternal format in which all cards are legal, has an extensive banned list and no restricted list.
Vintage: eternal format in which all cards are legal, has an extensive restricted list, and very few banned cards

I also listed them in order of affordability of play.

Sean · « **Reply #47 on:** January 30, 2009, 10:33:21 PM »

We need to ban Haman's Plot. It is too OP and breaks the game as well as itself. Who's with me?

Sean

SoulSaver · « **Reply #48 on:** January 30, 2009, 10:55:29 PM »

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #49 on:** January 31, 2009, 12:16:24 AM »

Quote from: SirNobody on January 30, 2009, 06:19:14 PM

I do not equate longevity with quality. Redemption is not inherently better than other CCGs because it has outlasted them. I consider Redemption's small size and niche market to be as much responsible for it's longevity as it's quality.

I think they go together quite well actually. A game might be successful for a short time because of popularity spawned by a tie-in to something else that is popular (movie, TV show, video game, book series, etc.). However, people won't continue to play a game for a long period of time unless it is actually fun. Therefore, if a game survives for over a decade when 95% of the other games in its genre do not, then that says a lot of the quality of the game.

News:

Author Topic: Breaking the game? (Read 41311 times)

The Schaef

Scottie_ffgamer

The Schaef

Warrior_Monk

darkvariant

SoulSaver