Author Topic: Just a thought for Rob (Read 33799 times)

lightningninja · « **Reply #125 on:** July 13, 2009, 05:17:55 PM »

@prof, But we haven't yet seen that it's a problem. Most people are fine with the status quo.

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #126 on:** July 13, 2009, 05:19:27 PM »

Quote from: SoulSaver on July 13, 2009, 05:16:08 PM

It's already been a proven problem. A ton of tournament outcomes including recent Nationals have had this issue come up frequently often determining our National tournament winners.

Again, I want to see a percentage of how often a game is lost COMPLETELY due to the Lost Soul issue. As in, no souls at all the entire game.

I need more proof then just "several games" in order to believe the game doesnt function as it is.

Korunks · « **Reply #127 on:** July 13, 2009, 05:20:59 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on July 13, 2009, 05:16:36 PM

Quote from: lightningninja on July 13, 2009, 04:58:14 PM
The game is fine. Please, wait for the next set and then if you still don't like it keep complaining. But at least wait to see the new cards. It could change your mind.
Quote from: Prof Underwood on July 12, 2009, 11:56:21 PM
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.

This is only a problem if you assume that Rob & crew will sweep the issue under the rug and ignore. This not what I have seen them do. This problem has only really been brought to a pointed and thorough debate recently, right?

Maybe they have solutions on the drawing board to address it? Lets not forget to appreciate the staff of Cactus Game Design for they willingness to listen to feedback. You would be fooling yourself if you thought companies like WotC care like they do. I am probably reading more into your post then you said but that is the issue I see with that line of reasoning.

SerpentSlayer · « **Reply #128 on:** July 13, 2009, 05:22:04 PM »

Quote

But we haven't yet seen that it's a problem. Most people are fine with the status quo.

You guys may have not personally witnessed this problem, but that does not mean it doesn't exist. I don't care if a 99.99% of the people are fine with the status quo. I'm still standing my ground from personal and eyewitness experience that there is a major problem with this game.

The Schaef · « **Reply #129 on:** July 13, 2009, 05:24:00 PM »

Quote from: Korunks on July 13, 2009, 05:03:54 PM

The context and tone of the suggestions can be construed as complaining, and to be fair some the posts in this thread could be seen as complaining.

Do you think I'm complaining about a game in which I have a small hand in the design and direction?

It's not my anticipation that these ideas will be implemented any time soon, if ever. But I don't see the harm in exploring these ideas and seeing where they shine and where they falter. In particular, I like to look at mechanics that work well in other card games and see if there's a way to make something like that work in the world of Redemption.

For example, another idea I considered was having a Prophecy or similar card type that, like my LS idea, would be placed face-down, and then flipped up each turn. If there was a certain condition that was met, the player would get some kind of bonus. "Leaders" is another idea in Vs that I was curious to see working in Redemption.

Yes, the game is fine the way it is, but if it was perfect the way it was, there would be no point in even adding more cards. The question is where and how can the game be improved, and what different options do we have?

As long as we have a card game, we'll have a draw system that inherently introduces randomness. There's no way around that. So the question is how do we work WITH it. You'll notice that a lot of these ideas are so radically different from the norm that existing cards have to be "adjusted" to "fit" the mold, and there aren't really any cards now that would take advantage of a design that exists only in theory (example: manipulating my soul row in some way).

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #130 on:** July 13, 2009, 05:25:45 PM »

Whitten, there's clearly a problem when your deck loses to a noob because of lost soul draw. You know what it is?

No Defense.

SerpentSlayer · « **Reply #131 on:** July 13, 2009, 05:27:41 PM »

Quote

Again, I want to see a percentage of how often a game is lost COMPLETELY due to the Lost Soul issue. As in, no souls at all the entire game.

I need more proof then just "several games" in order to believe the game doesnt function as it is.

It really doesn't matter what I say. Clearly I'm not going to change your mind or other people's mind that are on the same side of the fence with you.

The Schaef · « **Reply #132 on:** July 13, 2009, 05:28:20 PM »

An interesting statement coming from someone who proclaimed he would stand his ground even if 99.99% of people disagreed with him.

Quote from: Korunks on July 13, 2009, 05:20:59 PM

This is only a problem if you assume that Rob & crew will sweep the issue under the rug and ignore. This not what I have seen them do. This problem has only really been brought to a pointed and thorough debate recently, right?

I think what he's saying is that if we wait to implement a solution, then by the time we know whether the new set changes the game enough or not, we'll already be deep into tournament season, and we should wait for that, and then we'll be deep into planning the next set, and we should wait until that comes out, and so on.

I don't know if that is necessarily going to happen, but I think it's a valid concern if that scenario actually happens. At the moment, one of the biggest concerns is checking the number of games that time out. There seem to be a lot, not quite too many, but enough to keep an eye on that issue. Rob wants to make sure - as a standard - a regular T1 game can be played in 45 minutes or less. If more games start timing out, then the game is getting dragged down too much, and that is one of the major concerns with dropping NJ from play, is the possibility of increasing timeout percentages. We'd be going in the wrong direction.

Korunks · « **Reply #133 on:** July 13, 2009, 05:28:54 PM »

Quote

You guys may have not personally witnessed this problem, but that does not mean it doesn't exist. I don't care if a 99.99% of the people are fine with the status quo. I'm still standing my ground from personal and eyewitness experience that there is a major problem with this game.

If 00.01% of the people think there is a problem with the game still doesn't mean there is, It just means they think there is. Just because some people don't like how the game unfolds due to chance means that we have to upend the game system to appease them, that's called minority rule and it is as much of a danger as any "broken" part of the game. What if 00.001% think there is a major flaw in the way artifacts work, so we need to change the way artifacts work for them to? If the majority is happy the PTB have a responsibility to maintain balance

***EDIT***

@Schaef I am sorry I mistyped, I did not mean to lump all dissenting opinions as complainers, I just forgot to put "some of" in that sentence, a typing problem I have when I type to fast. I apologize, no slight towards any one is ever intended. I edited the post in question.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #134 on:** July 13, 2009, 05:30:58 PM »

And, FWIW, I do see a problem. However, I feel the problem is what makes the game great. I have to build and plan for games where theres more lost souls than I could rescue and games that there are no souls in sight. I find this to be strategic. The game is making me choose to use various cards to counter situations that may or may not happen. It's just another way that deck building is strategic.

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #135 on:** July 13, 2009, 05:33:30 PM »

What's wrong with providing some proof to make your argument stronger? If every style deck lost 1 out of 10 games due entirely to no lost souls, then I would agree theres a problem. However, I highly doubt that many games are lost due to nothing but souls. There are ways around it, there are ways to use it in your favor, etc.

If Lost souls on the bottom bug you that much, throw John (promo) into your deck so you know if you will win or loose.

STAMP · « **Reply #136 on:** July 13, 2009, 05:38:13 PM »

I'm not complaining. I play a better category anyway. I was throwing up ideas in case I ever decide to play T1 again. T1 == Las Vegas. T2 == chess.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #137 on:** July 13, 2009, 05:40:25 PM »

Quote from: Lamborghini_diablo on July 13, 2009, 05:33:30 PM

However, I highly doubt that many games are lost due to nothing but souls.

FWIW, the other point of this discussion is the fun & fellowship, which can be lost in younger players who are forced to do nothing but draw & discard for several turns while no LSs appear. Can you see how that could be a deterrant to new players?

Korunks · « **Reply #138 on:** July 13, 2009, 05:40:44 PM »

I disagree I feel that

T1 == Beginner, More accessible to n00bs
T2 == pro

but thats because I hate Las Vegas

Korunks · « **Reply #139 on:** July 13, 2009, 05:43:24 PM »

Actually that's when I strike up a conversation with my opponents during non tournament play. I feel them getting to know people will draw them back as much as the game itself.

STAMP · « **Reply #140 on:** July 13, 2009, 05:44:24 PM »

Plus, my idea encourages more battles.

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #141 on:** July 13, 2009, 05:45:22 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on July 13, 2009, 05:40:25 PM

FWIW, the other point of this discussion is the fun & fellowship, which can be lost in younger players who are forced to do nothing but draw & discard for several turns while no LSs appear. Can you see how that could be a deterrant to new players?

On the other hand, if a newer player is forced to draw a ton of souls and all their defense hides, the fun and fellowship can be lost due being walked over by the other player. I feel that forcing souls to come out faster seriously offsets the game. Right now, if you have 7 ECs in a 56 card deck, you have an even chance of drawing a soul and an EC. All these other ideas would force you to use like, 10 ec+ in a 7 (or 10) soul 56 card deck if you want an even chance of defending.

SerpentSlayer · « **Reply #142 on:** July 13, 2009, 05:46:25 PM »

I'm done here. I hope a new lost soul rule gets implemented.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #143 on:** July 13, 2009, 05:51:17 PM »

Quote from: Lamborghini_diablo on July 13, 2009, 05:45:22 PM

On the other hand, if a newer player is forced to draw a ton of souls and all their defense hides, the fun and fellowship can be lost due being walked over by the other player. I feel that forcing souls to come out faster seriously offsets the game. Right now, if you have 7 ECs in a 56 card deck, you have an even chance of drawing a soul and an EC. All these other ideas would force you to use like, 10 ec+ in a 7 (or 10) soul 56 card deck if you want an even chance of defending.

The younger players I dealt with all used 75+ card decks. I'm talking about young players just wanting to have fun. The souls are out, so start battling.

lightningninja · « **Reply #144 on:** July 13, 2009, 06:01:45 PM »

I just think that strategy would be demolished. You no longer need to try to jam in ls generators, cause your opponent would already have a fixed number every turn. I thought people also made a good points about death of unrighteousness. And if you just need more ls... I guess I'm not opposed to that entirely, even though I do think that the game is fine.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #145 on:** July 13, 2009, 06:02:30 PM »

Gameplay isn't obligated to allow little kids the most fun. They are welcome to play "sandlot" rules if they want during playgroup. But they should not be brought into a discussion about rule changes.

Korunks · « **Reply #146 on:** July 13, 2009, 06:03:46 PM »

Quote from: Janissary on July 13, 2009, 06:02:30 PM

Gameplay isn't obligated to allow little kids the most fun. They are welcome to play "sandlot" rules if they want during playgroup. But they should not be brought into a discussion about rule changes.

STAMP · « **Reply #147 on:** July 13, 2009, 06:11:44 PM »

Quote from: Janissary on July 13, 2009, 06:02:30 PM

Gameplay isn't obligated to allow little kids the most fun.

FresnoRedemption · « **Reply #148 on:** July 13, 2009, 06:16:31 PM »

Quote from: Korunks on July 13, 2009, 05:40:44 PM

I disagree I feel that

T1 == Beginner, More accessible to n00bs
T2 == pro

but thats because I hate Las Vegas

I disagree. I play T1 because I like the deck building rules better. I may be inclinded to build a T2 deck at some point, but for now T1 is just more enjoyable for me.

Korunks · « **Reply #149 on:** July 13, 2009, 06:22:56 PM »

Quote

I disagree. I play T1 because I like the deck building rules better. I may be inclinded to build a T2 deck at some point, but for now T1 is just more enjoyable for me.

I apologize, but my point stands, T1 is more accessible to new players. I didn't mean just new players, but very few new players are able to jump right into T2 and expect any success. I also prefer T1 games to T2 so I get ya.

News:

Author Topic: Just a thought for Rob (Read 33799 times)

Lamborghini_diablo

SerpentSlayer

The Schaef

SerpentSlayer

The Schaef

Lamborghini_diablo

Lamborghini_diablo

SerpentSlayer

FresnoRedemption