Author Topic: Rule Change Suggestion  (Read 1467 times)

Offline LordZardeck

  • RC! Founder/Creator
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 975
  • Programmer of all Languages \m/(>.<)\m/
    • -
    • Midwest Region
    • Redemption Connect!
Rule Change Suggestion
« on: March 17, 2012, 05:19:58 AM »
0
I noticed so many people are pushing hard for rule changes claiming the Redemption system is broken. Overpowered cards, insane speed decks, and stale, boring meta decks. So I started thinking of why Redemption is having this trouble compared to the secular card games. Then I realized a major difference. Redemption HAS NO LIMITS. You can have any number of heroes in play. You can have any number of Evil characters in play. You can have any number of sites in play. You can have any number of Fortresses in play. Has anyone stopped to think about this? How hard would meta decks be hit, of only a certain number of characters could be in play? Or fortresses? Think about every meta deck there is. THEY ALL HAVE RIDICULOUS AMOUNTS OF CHARACTERS AND FORTRESS IN PLAY! I dare you to start play-testing with a limited number of characters and fortresses in play. Just see how much you have to re-think the way you play redemption. And see just how much opportunity and diversity will appear.

Offline Nameless

  • Trade Count: (+39)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1914
    • -
    • North Central Region
    • THIS IS AWESOME!
Re: Rule Change Suggestion
« Reply #1 on: March 17, 2012, 08:19:54 AM »
0
For any number of sites, Samaria sites w/ Gates would be OP

Offline Red

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • *****
  • Posts: 4791
  • It takes time to build the boat.
    • LFG
    • Southeast Region
Re: Rule Change Suggestion
« Reply #2 on: March 17, 2012, 09:09:41 AM »
+1
Lol what meta? Last I checked meta=non-exisitent at the moment. Yay dom cap(I'm still in shock I like it)
Ironman 2016 and 2018 Winner.
3rd T1-2P 2018, 3rd T2-2P 2019
I survived the Flood twice.

Chronic Apathy

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Rule Change Suggestion
« Reply #3 on: March 17, 2012, 03:15:08 PM »
+1
I think at this point in time, suggesting new rules is a little pointless, since the meta had a major shake up this week, and nobody is really sure where exactly the meta is going to settle. I imagine that most meta decks will change a bit, but I'm much, much more interested in seeing what kind of decks are now possibly in the A tier, and whether defense heavy and anti-meta decks have enough strength to be a serious presence.

That said, I don't like this suggestion at all. I know that you're a player that prefers to load up on enhancements and stick them in Storehouse when you get hand clogged, but that kind of play style just doesn't sound fun to me. That's the kind of rule that would probably make me lose interest in Redemption because I wouldn't have fun with it anymore.

Offline Prof Underwood

  • Redemption Elder
  • Trade Count: (+7)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8597
    • -
    • East Central Region
Re: Rule Change Suggestion
« Reply #4 on: March 17, 2012, 04:01:42 PM »
0
I agree with Chronic that with all the new rule changes we'll need some time to get used to those before people will be ready to experiment with other stuff.  However, I think this could be an interesting idea if you went all the way and created a variant where all decks had to follow the rule of 7's.

7 GCs
7 GEs
7 ECs
7 EEs
7 LSs
7 Doms
7 Arts/Forts
1-7 Other (personal choice)

Chronic Apathy

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Rule Change Suggestion
« Reply #5 on: March 17, 2012, 04:04:55 PM »
0
You preferred bigger numbers a few months ago Prof. What changed?

Offline LordZardeck

  • RC! Founder/Creator
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 975
  • Programmer of all Languages \m/(>.<)\m/
    • -
    • Midwest Region
    • Redemption Connect!
Re: Rule Change Suggestion
« Reply #6 on: March 17, 2012, 04:11:12 PM »
0
I agree with Chronic that with all the new rule changes we'll need some time to get used to those before people will be ready to experiment with other stuff.  However, I think this could be an interesting idea if you went all the way and created a variant where all decks had to follow the rule of 7's.

7 GCs
7 GEs
7 ECs
7 EEs
7 LSs
7 Doms
7 Arts/Forts
1-7 Other (personal choice)

I'm not talking about limiting the number in a deck. I'm talking about limiting the number in PLAY

Offline Prof Underwood

  • Redemption Elder
  • Trade Count: (+7)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8597
    • -
    • East Central Region
Re: Rule Change Suggestion
« Reply #7 on: March 17, 2012, 04:17:20 PM »
0
You preferred bigger numbers a few months ago Prof. What changed?
I still prefer the rule of 8's for new players.  However, now that there is a hard limit of 7 doms, there can't be 8 doms in a deck.  There also can't be 8 LSs in that size deck unless we force everyone to use the Hopper.  Finally, there would be almost no flexibility at all using the rule of 8s (which is good for beginners who don't know what to do with the flexibility and need more guidance).  Therefore, if this were to become a viable alternative way to play, I think the rule of 7's would work better.

I'm not talking about limiting the number in a deck. I'm talking about limiting the number in PLAY
Oh, that is less interesting to me.  However, you'd have to have some pretty small numbers to really create a varient that would actually end up looking different.  A lot of decks don't have more than 2 fortresses down, so to change things you'd have to probably limit it to 1.  A lot of decks don't put ECs or enhs down, so that would also have to be limited to 1.  And many decks could be just fine with only about 3 GCs in play as well.  I think what you would end up with is a category where people could hardly put anything down, and would just end up with an amazing amount of hand clog.

Offline LordZardeck

  • RC! Founder/Creator
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 975
  • Programmer of all Languages \m/(>.<)\m/
    • -
    • Midwest Region
    • Redemption Connect!
Re: Rule Change Suggestion
« Reply #8 on: March 17, 2012, 04:25:25 PM »
0
I'm not talking about limiting the number in a deck. I'm talking about limiting the number in PLAY
Oh, that is less interesting to me.  However, you'd have to have some pretty small numbers to really create a varient that would actually end up looking different.  A lot of decks don't have more than 2 fortresses down, so to change things you'd have to probably limit it to 1.  A lot of decks don't put ECs or enhs down, so that would also have to be limited to 1.  And many decks could be just fine with only about 3 GCs in play as well.  I think what you would end up with is a category where people could hardly put anything down, and would just end up with an amazing amount of hand clog.

So far almost every deck I have played in the last 3 months of my getting back in the game, there have been either 8 or more heroes or 8 or more evil characters in play as soon as they can get them there. Also, there are almost always 2 or more fortresses up. As to the hand issue, don't draw 3. I always thought that was too much anyway

Offline BubbleBoy

  • Trade Count: (+11)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8014
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: Rule Change Suggestion
« Reply #9 on: March 17, 2012, 05:19:20 PM »
0
What I think might be interesting is a "recovery period" rule. That is, a character cannot enter battle more than once every two turns. I don't like the idea of a character playing limit though.
Use the Mad Bomber to rescue his Province.

 


SimplePortal 2.3.3 © 2008-2010, SimplePortal