Author Topic: Just a thought for Rob (Read 33848 times)

Arch Angel · « **Reply #50 on:** July 12, 2009, 02:24:44 PM »

Quote from: SoulSaver on July 12, 2009, 02:23:58 PM

I'm sure he would be that would be broken.

That sentence broke my head. ._.

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #51 on:** July 12, 2009, 02:26:08 PM »

I know, took me like three re-reads to get what he meant.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #52 on:** July 12, 2009, 02:27:02 PM »

I agree with the belief that this type of change will encourage bigger decks, and that may be a good thing.

Lambo, no offense, but a defense-heavy deck is not a desirable scenario for new and young players from orthodox-type churches. You have no idea how much of a struggle I have had trying to circumvent parent complaints about having demons in a Christian card game. I really don't want parents looking at their child's deck and seeing the vast majority of the deck riddled with all the evil characters and events of the Bible. This is a PR nightmare.

SerpentSlayer · « **Reply #53 on:** July 12, 2009, 02:27:11 PM »

There it's fixed. Are you girls happy now?

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #54 on:** July 12, 2009, 02:32:21 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on July 12, 2009, 02:27:02 PM

I agree with the belief that this type of change will encourage bigger decks, and that may be a good thing.

Lambo, no offense, but a defense-heavy deck is not a desirable scenario for new and young players from orthodox-type churches. You have no idea how much of a struggle I have had trying to circumvent parent complaints about having demons in a Christian card game. I really don't want parents looking at their child's deck and seeing the vast majority of the deck riddled with all the evil characters and events of the Bible. This is a PR nightmare.

LOL! I never thought about it in that light... thats just kinda goofy to me, but I can see how that could be a problem for some.

Quote from: SoulSaver on July 12, 2009, 02:27:11 PM

There it's fixed. Are you ~~girls~~ Manly Men happy now?

Yes.

SerpentSlayer · « **Reply #55 on:** July 12, 2009, 02:33:07 PM »

lol

Arch Angel · « **Reply #56 on:** July 12, 2009, 02:33:18 PM »

Quote from: Lamborghini_diablo on July 12, 2009, 02:32:21 PM

Quote from: SoulSaver on July 12, 2009, 02:27:11 PM
There it's fixed. Are you ~~girls~~ Manly Men happy now?

Yes.

We're men, Manly men, were men in tights!

Red Dragon Thorn · « **Reply #57 on:** July 12, 2009, 02:46:37 PM »

Oh wow.... look what you started now....

I agree with whoever said we should wait to see what the new set brings

SerpentSlayer · « **Reply #58 on:** July 12, 2009, 02:53:22 PM »

I didn't start anything.

They just sorta came out of the closet.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #59 on:** July 12, 2009, 03:01:32 PM »

FWIW, I was never in that closet.

SerpentSlayer · « **Reply #60 on:** July 12, 2009, 03:44:55 PM »

Quote

FWIW, I was never in that closet.

I laughed so hard when I saw that post. ^

crustpope · « **Reply #61 on:** July 12, 2009, 06:23:39 PM »

well, I leave for a weekend and you guys add 5 pages. I still like my LS pile idea. You can even add 10 LS's to the pile for a 56 card deck and draw them one at a time during your opening draw and subsequent draw phase. Daniel mentioned that SoG and Burial would become more powerful but I dissagree. Burial becomes powerful only if you draw it in the first couple of turns and SoG already has a way to limit its use in opening rounds...the need to team it with NJ.

In my scenario you have a 56 card deck full of offense and defense and whatever you want, and then you have another 7-10 card draw pile of just LS's and you pull them out one at a time while you draw a hand full of other playable cards. This opens up 7 more slots for "fun" cards and still settles the LS drought/Flood problems. HT can still be played on the opponents LS deck and you are still free to include A Slave/malchus/Servant Girl/War officer/Recruiting officer/ Night Raid/Joseph in Prison/ Dungeon of malachi...etc, etc, etc in your deck to produce even more LS Should you choose.

I think this will help new players find a more enjoyable game because they can rescue from the first round, as well as seasoned vetrans worried that their "superior" deck falls victim to the best defense in the game...No LOST SOULS.

BTW. as a horror story, I saw a game where someone did not volluntarially draw a LS until there were only 12 cards left in his deck. His opponent rescued only the hopper and the other hopper due to HT. it was probably the worst case of LS droungt i had ever seen.

RTSmaniac · « **Reply #62 on:** July 12, 2009, 10:13:42 PM »

ok heres an idea of fun
10 ls in a 50 card deck and we all can just give each other lost souls each round. the winner will be who draws the most lost souls first so they get to attack first

fun(sarcasm)

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #63 on:** July 12, 2009, 10:15:24 PM »

Crustpope, your idea will just make people complain about not getting ECs.

TheKarazyvicePresidentRR · « **Reply #64 on:** July 12, 2009, 10:45:12 PM »

Quote from: Janissary on July 12, 2009, 10:15:24 PM

Crustpope, your idea will just make people complain about not getting ECs.

I agree with everything that lambo said. Also if me being happy breaks the game, You will hate the next set.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #65 on:** July 12, 2009, 11:28:53 PM »

I'm with you guys RR. I'm just trying to point out that people will always complain.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #66 on:** July 12, 2009, 11:56:21 PM »

Quote from: Red Dragon Thorn on July 12, 2009, 02:46:37 PM

I agree with whoever said we should wait to see what the new set brings

The problem with this reasoning is that after we see what the new set brings, then there will be the next set being talked about and we will just say the same thing again. If something is a problem, sometimes it is best to simply make the change.

As for what change to make, I agree with everyone saying that increasing the number of LSs in a deck is a bad idea because it reduces the amount of slots in a deck to put cards that make decks unique. I also really like CP's idea of the separate LS stack. If it didn't count toward the deck size then it would actually increase the amount of slots in a deck for cards that make it unique.

As long as the LS stack was shuffled upside down, there would still be randomness in which order the LSs came out. I personally like the idea of them coming out based on cards drawn from the deck (ie. 1 LS for every 6 cards). This steady stream of LS would prevent both "LS drought" and "LS glut". It would be more fair to both players.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #67 on:** July 12, 2009, 11:58:57 PM »

If the game is "fair", then it's no longer a card game. The essence of it being a card game implies some sort of randomness via a drawing mechanism. If you want to play a "fair" game, go play a computer game with set laws of how the world works.

crustpope · « **Reply #68 on:** July 13, 2009, 12:01:10 AM »

Quote from: Janissary on July 12, 2009, 10:15:24 PM

Crustpope, your idea will just make people complain about not getting ECs.

Oh Alex, you would find something to compain about regardless of what I suggest

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #69 on:** July 13, 2009, 12:02:42 AM »

Haha. I'm just saying, when you put a bunch of competitive christians together in a somewhat anonymous setting, complaining and/or bickering is guranteed to occur.

crustpope · « **Reply #70 on:** July 13, 2009, 12:03:35 AM »

I have worked in enought churches to recognise the unfortunate truth in that statement.. $:-\$

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #71 on:** July 13, 2009, 12:04:22 AM »

Which is why I almost didn't put the smiley. But I figured it'd be safer to keep it there,

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #72 on:** July 13, 2009, 12:14:16 AM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on July 12, 2009, 11:56:21 PM

As long as the LS stack was shuffled upside down, there would still be randomness in which order the LSs came out.

Quote from: Janissary on July 12, 2009, 11:58:57 PM

If the game is "fair", then it's no longer a card game. The essence of it being a card game implies some sort of randomness via a drawing mechanism.

Did you read my post?

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #73 on:** July 13, 2009, 12:18:21 AM »

Yes. But a controlled drawing mechanic is in no way in the spirit of randomness that has correctly dominated card games. You of all people should not be arguing for this. All a consistant flow of lost souls does is shorten games while removing the random element of chance (providence) from the game in such a way that whoever draws SoG, NJ and can block 1-2 times first will win.

crustpope · « **Reply #74 on:** July 13, 2009, 12:20:02 AM »

The more I think about the separate LS stack Idea, the more I like it.
1. IT frees up 7 spaces for more evil or good cards,
2. you can increase the number of LS's in a game without crowding up a deck by simply adding them to the LS pile.
3. The lost souls would still be randomized but they would come consistently.
4. It owuld force people to play defense knowing they woudl have to defend from the very beginning

News:

Author Topic: Just a thought for Rob (Read 33848 times)

Lamborghini_diablo

SerpentSlayer

Lamborghini_diablo

SerpentSlayer

SerpentSlayer

SerpentSlayer