Cactus Game Design Message Boards

@ SomeKittens:  It proves your point to a certain degree.  I was able to have confidence at Nats, because I didn't think anyone would "tech" (I believe it is the right term) against me.  However, at smaller tournaments where I frequented and online, people have built decks to counter my style of play.  In that case, I need secondary decks.  I don't fault them because I have done it as well, to a certain degree.  I typically use my third deck as a counter deck.

@ SomeKittens:  It proves your point to a certain degree.  I was able to have confidence at Nats, because I didn't think anyone would "tech" (I believe it is the right term) against me.  However, at smaller tournaments where I frequented and online, people have built decks to counter my style of play.  In that case, I need secondary decks.  I don't fault them because I have done it as well, to a certain degree.  I typically use my third deck as a counter deck.

That's touching up on the meta. If someone is using a deck to counter another one, that's meta since you're trying to improve your chances of winning. That counter deck may contain cards that work specifically well against a certain match up or deck type. But that wouldn't be done effectively if that individual hadn't put that side deck together in the first place just for that purpose and that's what you're saying, you typically use a third deck for that.

So because you don't always know your opponent or their deck, especially at high level tournaments with many new faces, and because people like Johnathan build extra decks to avoid getting teched, and because additional decks I'm now being informed are NOT supposed to be built just to counter a certain player, I really fail to see how selecting the deck before pairings destroys the point of having additional decks.  All the reasons stated for being able to tech against other players seem to end up not actually mattering.

I've been told that the metagame is about what strategies are dominant across tournament play (e.g. Genesis decks, or pre-block ignore decks, or speed decks), and therefore it is wise to build to account for what you are likely to encounter over the course of a tournament.  Going one layer deep, expecting people to be looking for Genesis or NT white female, you decide to build a red warrior deck or a gold conversion deck, hoping you can render their planned counters worthless.  There is a lot of metagaming and deckbuilding strategy that goes on before you even set foot on the tournament site.

To bring this back around to the original point, it is definitely unfair and therefore unethical to look at other tables to see what each player is using specifically, and then grabbing a deck already knowing the contents of their deck.  If you guys think that's the whole point of metagaming, let us know and we'll start letting each player look at every other players' decks before the tournament so everyone has equal knowledge of what they may face that day.

I'm not trying to say "look" at players’ decks like grab people aside and tell them to give you the break down of it. That's extreme. Or even spying on people, I didn’t say that. It's more effective in smaller tournaments because you know more people personally. It works more as a predicament, not espionage. Have you ever seen a professional MMA fight? Well, fights “train” before they go into a fight. They study their opponent (lets say decks) and trying to observe what could defeat them and what that opponent could be weak in. So after weeks of training when the fight comes up, they know what moves & attacks to perform. Well, in redemption if you study what’s out there and know how well or how bad your deck performs in certain areas of Redemption game play, that person could make better decision in knowing what deck to play with. A person would perhaps build side decks to suit whatever deck types & strategies they believe would give them a hard time in tournament play. It’s a tournament and obviously you could expect competition. If a player was really committed to trying to win or just improve their record, they’d perhaps try to make a mental note of what’s going on or what they believe they would face out there. Perhaps before the tournament they’d try to talk to their friends about what they think they’d expect or see at a tournament or whose playing what. Stuff like that. Or even speak to the host, that person would be doing their homework and research to be well-informed of what they think they can expect at a tournament. To make a decision so when the time comes, you know what to do.

Preparing for local meta makes sense, but I still don't think it's fair (to that person) to make a deck to take down one person.

At the only tournament outside this state that I have ever been to (a couple years ago), I won Type 1 2-player using a deck strategy that no one had thought could win in tournament play.  After the game, my opponent from the final match (who did not know me at all) said that he knew he would lose to me if I got Raider's Camp out early.  This seemed like an odd statement, so I inquired further and found out that another player I had beaten told him about my deck.  I assume that this is frowned upon, but how do you stop it?

If this person had brought a second deck, and knew that we were headed to the finals, he could have switched decks based on the information that he had.  Like I said, the possibility of this just really bothers me, because my ONE deck had to beat several other players before it could even get to the finals.

Inside information like that during the tournament shouldn't be tolerated. What I'm trying to point out is trying to be better prepared before things happen.

Quote from: disciple_drew on February 03, 2011, 01:32:15 PM

Inside information like that during the tournament shouldn't be tolerated. What I'm trying to point out is trying to be better prepared before things happen.

Exactly.  I'll be hosting a tournament on March 5th (Blatant promotion!), and SoulSeeker will be attending.  Will I be better prepared, because the majority of the players will be my group?
No, SoulSeeker's the flippin' champion.  But still, the point stands.

Now, if I were to instruct some of my players to remember what kind of deck's he's using at the tournament, so I could counter them when I play them, that's just not ok.

On the other hand, scheduling his favorite events at the same time as mine... that's a different matter....

I have favorite events?     That's news to me.   
In all seriousness, I already plan to bring two decks.  One of the decks, you and your guys have faced at least twice and maybe three times.  Also, I count on people talking because it happens all the time.  I don't think it is always intentional scouting or the like because of what the stories are about, but it does happen. 

The other deck, you guys have never seen before (I'm not even sure if you or your guys have seen the strategy behind it).  It's a fun deck that can compete...I just don't know if it will win the whole tournament.  So if I stick with this deck all tournament, then there is no guarantee if I will place at all.

That's touching up on the meta. If someone is using a deck to counter another one, that's meta since you're trying to improve your chances of winning.

. 
I think we have different definitions of meta.  My definition lines up with Schaef's.  A meta is the dominant or predominantly-used strategy of whatever level the meta is referencing. 
   Countering decks for the possibility of winning I think is "Teching."
I'm just clarifying so we all understand each other.  I hate the breakdown in communication come from two different sets of definitions for the same words.

Quote from: SomeKittens on February 03, 2011, 01:36:42 PM

Quote from: disciple_drew on February 03, 2011, 01:32:15 PM

Inside information like that during the tournament shouldn't be tolerated. What I'm trying to point out is trying to be better prepared before things happen.

Exactly.  I'll be hosting a tournament on March 5th (Blatant promotion!), and SoulSeeker will be attending.  Will I be better prepared, because the majority of the players will be my group?
No, SoulSeeker's the flippin' champion.  But still, the point stands.

Now, if I were to instruct some of my players to remember what kind of deck's he's using at the tournament, so I could counter them when I play them, that's just not ok.

On the other hand, scheduling his favorite events at the same time as mine... that's a different matter....

I have favorite events?     That's news to me.   
In all seriousness, I already plan to bring two decks.  One of the decks, you and your guys have faced at least twice and maybe three times.  Also, I count on people talking because it happens all the time.  I don't think it is always intentional scouting or the like because of what the stories are about, but it does happen. 

The other deck, you guys have never seen before (I'm not even sure if you or your guys have seen the strategy behind it).  It's a fun deck that can compete...I just don't know if it will win the whole tournament.  So if I stick with this deck all tournament, then there is no guarantee if I will place at all.

Quote from: disciple_drew on February 03, 2011, 12:31:24 PM

That's touching up on the meta. If someone is using a deck to counter another one, that's meta since you're trying to improve your chances of winning.

. 
I think we have different definitions of meta.  My definition lines up with Schaef's.  A meta is the dominant or predominantly-used strategy of whatever level the meta is referencing. 
   Countering decks for the possibility of winning I think is "Teching."
I'm just clarifying so we all understand each other.  I hate the breakdown in communication come from two different sets of definitions for the same words.

Yeah, well at least we're both aware of the concepts and ideas of how it works and what to do. That's at least what I think people are trying to build on and talk about.

Quote from: disciple_drew on February 03, 2011, 01:56:19 PM

Not exactly, you don't know if he'll even use the same deck or perhaps show up with another deck just to throw everyone else off from what you tell your group.

If you don't even know for sure what a person is going to use in the match, then why would you say that not being allowed to select your deck after knowing your opponent destroys the purpose of metagaming?

Because the whole point is to be better prepared. If someone uses the meta and techs their deck, it'll help them to a degree. Although it's not guaranteed or promised. It's better to know who you're facing before you have to sit down with them, then it makes your whole side deck and using the meta effective & useful. If not, then everyone would have just wasted their time. It might as well been a game of chance and luck then. If it was like that, we should of just took up poker lol.

If the whole point is to be prepared, then it makes sense to let everyone see everyone's decks, so they can prepare, right?

Which is the whole point of hosting!  Kidding, of course.  But it does raise some interesting problems at small tournaments.

I typically bring 2 (sometimes 3) decks to tournaments. They have very specific goals:

1: The main deck I am planning to play.
2: A Heavy Offense deck deisgned to boost differential.
3: A Heavy Defense deck designed to tie or win late if I am the top 1 or 2 seats in the last round.

You can do all of those things before you set foot on the tournament site.  This doesn't explain why I have to be able to cherry-pick a deck against a known opponent.

To improve the chances. If you ask the above again, I guess you're looking for a different answer.

You haven't explained why allowing people to examine everyone's decks before a tournament is unreasonable, if the entire point of metagaming is to know what other people are playing and how to beat it before you play your first card.  That is essentially what you're asking for right now anyway, to choose a deck based on foreknowledge of the other player's deck, and my proposition gives everyone an equal and fair chance to choose the right deck and improve their chances.
[/quote]

I did not say that and that's not what I'm trying to say, just stop assuming what I'm saying. I've explained preparation dozens of times over. I wasn't justifying looking over people's deck before a tournament and because I didn't say it don't expect me to break it down to you.

To improve the chances. If you ask the above again, I guess you're looking for a different answer.

I asked the above repeatedly because, as I pointed out to you, the logic you presented combined with the evidence in this thread does not support this answer.  The potential to improve chances is negated by the fact that you don't always know your opponent, and even if you do you don't know his deck, and even if you do he might change up on you.  It only improves your chances is you also have foreknowledge of his deck contents, but you said you don't support that notion, so without that, there is no compelling reason that choosing the deck after gives any appreciable benefit over choosing before.

I did not say that and that's not what I'm trying to say, just stop assuming what I'm saying.

Please read what I'm writing before you respond.  I didn't ask you why you want people to look at each other's decks, I asked you why you think it's unreasonable FOR ME to propose that TO YOU.  To remind you, my original proposition:

If you guys think that's the whole point of metagaming, let us know and we'll start letting each player look at every other players' decks before the tournament so everyone has equal knowledge of what they may face that day.

and your original response:

I'm not trying to say "look" at players’ decks like grab people aside and tell them to give you the break down of it. That's extreme.

And that's what I'm trying to get at: why you think it's extreme to give everyone foreknowledge of everyone else's deck, but you think it's not only normal for a few people to have foreknowledge of a few decks, but so critically important that if you're not allowed to do that, then it is "stupid" and "defeats the whole purpose".