Author Topic: New Jerusalem is not going to be banned at this time. (Read 20833 times)

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #50 on:** July 09, 2009, 08:58:42 PM »

Quote from: lightningninja on July 09, 2009, 07:31:43 PM

I never saw Rob's thread about banning it... but I would have been TOTALLY for it.

1. It's for a time. We've tried new Jerusalem for about 10 years. We can go one trial year without it.
2. I don't even remember the last time a defense heavy deck won nationals. I think that New Jerusalem being banned would cause people to not rely so much on speed and just rescuing three lost souls and then "all I need is sog and nj."
3. People would be forced to make decks other than speed to win multi-player.
4. The combination of the 3 above factors would make more balanced games and more clash.

1. Why fix what isn't broken? While some say it is, if anyone objectively looks at it, the game is fine. Games only become broken when all decks are the same because a broken group of cards create an unstoppable deck. Sorry, Redemption does not have this.
2. How does no NJ = more defense? A lack of an instant rescue means that I have one extra soul to give to my opponent through RAs. That means I can put less defense in my deck, because I am able to give up an extra soul per game. That means I get more offense. Which means I get more unstoppable RAs and abuses.
3. Not true. That category will always be dominated by speed because you need to have a hero at all times due to the erratic nature of lost soul drawing that often occurs.
4. Not if all three are pretty much wrong.

lightningninja · « **Reply #51 on:** July 09, 2009, 09:03:12 PM »

Those were just my observations.

My concept was with two is that you can't just rely on getting a quick rescue. The game is more balanced, so you'll need more defense, instead of just relying on a quick offense to get ls before you opponent wins.

Master KChief · « **Reply #52 on:** July 09, 2009, 09:07:43 PM »

Quote from: Janissary on July 09, 2009, 08:58:42 PM

Quote from: lightningninja on July 09, 2009, 07:31:43 PM
I never saw Rob's thread about banning it... but I would have been TOTALLY for it.

1. It's for a time. We've tried new Jerusalem for about 10 years. We can go one trial year without it.
2. I don't even remember the last time a defense heavy deck won nationals. I think that New Jerusalem being banned would cause people to not rely so much on speed and just rescuing three lost souls and then "all I need is sog and nj."
3. People would be forced to make decks other than speed to win multi-player.
4. The combination of the 3 above factors would make more balanced games and more clash.

1. Why fix what isn't broken? While some say it is, if anyone objectively looks at it, the game is fine. Games only become broken when all decks are the same because a broken group of cards create an unstoppable deck. Sorry, Redemption does not have this.
2. How does no NJ = more defense? A lack of an instant rescue means that I have one extra soul to give to my opponent through RAs. That means I can put less defense in my deck, because I am able to give up an extra soul per game. That means I get more offense. Which means I get more unstoppable RAs and abuses.
3. Not true. That category will always be dominated by speed because you need to have a hero at all times due to the erratic nature of lost soul drawing that often occurs.
4. Not if all three are pretty much wrong.

1. you dont have to have a 'group' of cards to have a broken meta. its usually just one particular card that is so op and imbalanced that creates rifts in the meta. sog/nj are the two most powerfully broken cards in the game, and everyone uses them. even though they wont necessarily win you the game, they put you 40% closer to that goal. that seems pretty imbalanced to me.
2. it can go either way. i might pre-empt the meta that is pushing more offense by using more defense in my decks. in fact, i think defense decks will probably be given more of a push because by upping the lost soul count to 6 makes it 1 more harder for offensive decks to win. sorry, but there is no 1 card combo in redemption that can match the power of nj, so offensive decks will be taking a hurting here.
3. true. speed will more than likely always reign t1mp.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #53 on:** July 09, 2009, 09:09:48 PM »

No way. The first thing I do when NJ gets banned is exclusively play with Speed and >10 defenses because I have to rescue more souls through battles, and I can give up more. Also, I definately can't afford have very many stopped and my enhancements wasted, so Jacob + RTC + Captain + ET + AoC + TGT/Heroes become almost instant staples in my decks. By banning NJ, a cascade effect occurs that creates more speed, more offense, and less fun.

@MKC
They're matched by FA. GOYS further unbalances the attempted balance. Ban GOYS first.

Master KChief · « **Reply #54 on:** July 09, 2009, 09:24:39 PM »

banning goys = same as banning nj. that is, if everyone still uses fa. banning nj would be far easier than banning goys anyways, as dropping sog/nj nets you +2 instantly, whereas goys only stops a deficit of -1.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #55 on:** July 09, 2009, 09:26:24 PM »

I completely disagree. GOYS is not a deck staple nor is it a gurantee rescue. It's a useful card that most decks could use, but their is usualy a strategic cost to adding it. There is no real cost to adding NJ. They are fundamentally different cards.

lightningninja · « **Reply #56 on:** July 09, 2009, 09:28:25 PM »

By the way... I don't see how strategies would change at all. I change my position.

You need to get more, but so does your opponent. So wouldn't deck strategies stay the same?

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #57 on:** July 09, 2009, 09:30:15 PM »

Just for clarification and curiousity, would you agree with my deckbuilding sentiments? More ignore, more cheap rescues, more broken?

lightningninja · « **Reply #58 on:** July 09, 2009, 09:33:05 PM »

Nope. My deck could rescue 4 ls as is. I'd prefer to rescue 3, but it wouldn't suffer. And I don't think most would.

Master KChief · « **Reply #59 on:** July 09, 2009, 09:36:50 PM »

Quote from: Janissary on July 09, 2009, 09:26:24 PM

I completely disagree. GOYS is not a deck staple nor is it a gurantee rescue. It's a useful card that most decks could use, but their is usualy a strategic cost to adding it. There is no real cost to adding NJ. They are fundamentally different cards.

i think you pretty much summed it up there. NO REAL COST to adding nj. most good ccg's work on the risk/reward system to create a balanced game. sog/nj has no risk, but a huge reward. its broken. ban one, or both ideally.

i partially agree on your newly proposed deckbuilding. however, you're glossing over the fact how there is not another single card in the game that could possibly match the power of nj (save sog, natch). to add in all these 'instant staples' of yours needs deck space...of which you are only at -1. where do you find such deck space?

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #60 on:** July 09, 2009, 09:40:29 PM »

Notice I said I'm changing my decks to less defense more offense. I believe the point here is to get more defense, and imo, this idea is fail at that. The only way to get more D is to go 60 and 6, and even that is only a maybe. Personally, I don't want to see a major change to the meta simply because the game has survived in its place for 15 years. I don't want to see something like this pass and have the game fall apart.

Master KChief · « **Reply #61 on:** July 09, 2009, 09:47:05 PM »

Quote from: Janissary on July 09, 2009, 09:40:29 PM

Notice I said I'm changing my decks to less defense more offense. I believe the point here is to get more defense, and imo, this idea is fail at that. The only way to get more D is to go 60 and 6, and even that is only a maybe. Personally, I don't want to see a major change to the meta simply because the game has survived in its place for 15 years. I don't want to see something like this pass and have the game fall apart.

...hence the proposed trial period of banning nj.

im pretty much open to anything that balances the game at this point. personally, i dont believe 60 and 6 will help all that much, now that i think about it. i think the main problem with sog/nj is the fact it gives you +2 to score instantly. i reason that if nj was banned, it would force players to use alternates (such as your proposed usage of tgt/cap/rtc/etc) that are still slower in execution than nj by all means...which means a player has a chance to recover and put some D up. it forces the game to 'spread out' that +2 instant net from sog/nj into something else spread out over a few more turns. i believe slowing it down like that is ultimately healthy for the game.

Sean · « **Reply #62 on:** July 09, 2009, 10:11:47 PM »

I don't have the time to read through the whole thread but I would just like to say that I think if a card is banned, no matter what card and no matter what the reason, I feel it should be banned for all categories. It seems much more simple that way, well, to me anyway.

SirNobody · « **Reply #63 on:** July 09, 2009, 10:39:51 PM »

Hey,

Quote from: lightningninja on July 09, 2009, 07:31:43 PM

2. I don't even remember the last time a defense heavy deck won nationals.

Um...how about last year? The deck that won nationals last year had 24 evil cards and 20 good cards.*

The decks that won nationals in 2003 and 2004 also had more evil cards than good cards.
The deck that won nationals in 2005 had 18 good cards and 17 evil cards, so not defensive heavy, but not offensive heavy either.
I don't have a card list of the deck that won nationals in 2006 but the prototype for it had more evil cards than good cards.

The only time an offensive heavy deck has ever won nationals was in 2007 (at least as far back as 2000 which is as far back as my memory/records go).

Unless by "defensive heavy" you mean extremely defensive heavy. The nature of Swiss Style, time limits, and differential tie-breaker make it nearly impossible for an extremely defensive heavy deck to win nationals.

* Good and Evil card counts are based on how cards are identified as good an evil for Type 2 deck building requirements.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

Soundman2 · « **Reply #64 on:** July 10, 2009, 01:14:08 AM »

OK so if balance is what we need than, I prepose:

Ban GoYS and crate a card that is "play this card simultaneously with falling away and you may take one more redeemed soul from your opponent"

-----OR-----

make a card that says "if this card is played simultaneously with falling away you may interrupt GoYS and fall away 2 lost souls"

lightningninja · « **Reply #65 on:** July 10, 2009, 03:25:43 AM »

Or leave the game as it is. If Rob decides something, it's official.

Master KChief · « **Reply #66 on:** July 10, 2009, 04:10:28 AM »

Quote from: Soundman2 on July 10, 2009, 01:14:08 AM

OK so if balance is what we need than, I prepose:

Ban GoYS and crate a card that is "play this card simultaneously with falling away and you may take one more redeemed soul from your opponent"

-----OR-----

make a card that says "if this card is played simultaneously with falling away you may interrupt GoYS and fall away 2 lost souls"

LOL i like these.

soul seeker · « **Reply #67 on:** July 10, 2009, 10:21:43 AM »

Quote from: Master KChief on July 09, 2009, 09:36:50 PM

...sog/nj has no risk, but a huge reward. its broken. ban one, or both ideally.

Ban Jesus from a Christian card game.

Wow.

It just proves my point that nobody is ever happy with one banned card...they start a witch hunt for others. Banning cards start down a slippery slope that I don't think is wise.

Plus, I think Jannissary is making some great points. I would highly recommend his posts to be read in this thread. Twice.

TimMierz · « **Reply #68 on:** July 10, 2009, 10:29:58 AM »

Quote from: soul seeker on July 10, 2009, 10:21:43 AM

It just proves my point that nobody is ever happy with one banned card...they start a witch hunt for others. Banning cards start down a slippery slope that I don't think is wise.

1. Only a small percentage of NJ-dissenters have advocated other cards as well.

2. If it helps the game to ban more cards (which is the only reason any banning is being discussed), then it's not the great evil you make it out to be.

soul seeker · « **Reply #69 on:** July 10, 2009, 10:33:12 AM »

Quote from: TimMierz on July 10, 2009, 10:29:58 AM

Quote from: soul seeker on July 10, 2009, 10:21:43 AM
It just proves my point that nobody is ever happy with one banned card...they start a witch hunt for others. Banning cards start down a slippery slope that I don't think is wise.
2. If it helps the game to ban more cards (which is the only reason any banning is being discussed), then it's not the great evil you make it out to be.

See, that is another point we disagree on. I think the witch hunt is a great evil. It generally takes more innocents then it does witches.

crustpope · « **Reply #70 on:** July 10, 2009, 10:38:10 AM »

Along with NJ, I think we should Ban Soul Seeker from all State level tournaments and higher.

But that is just my humble opinion

Captain Kirk · « **Reply #71 on:** July 10, 2009, 10:51:18 AM »

All he did was suck in all the points at a 4 player state tournament, what an noob...

Kirk

Gabe · « **Reply #72 on:** July 10, 2009, 11:03:37 AM »

Quote from: Captain Kirk on July 10, 2009, 10:51:18 AM

All he did was suck in all the points at a 4 player state tournament, what an noob...

... with a medal.

crustpope · « **Reply #73 on:** July 10, 2009, 11:45:39 AM »

Dont forget he also took 2nd place from me at the MW Regionals in type 2 two player ...

and then CRIED about it due to people showing up late and their byes and such. If only HE had played Jonathan Pequinot, then maybe he could have had something to cry about like me...

Captain Kirk · « **Reply #74 on:** July 10, 2009, 11:46:46 AM »

Yea, what a noob.

Kirk

News:

Author Topic: New Jerusalem is not going to be banned at this time. (Read 20833 times)