Author Topic: Can we change Type 1 Multiplayer? (Read 4350 times)

KingLeo · « **on:** December 25, 2012, 08:21:12 PM »

Now the probable for having a medium D in type two is that others lost souls is vulnerable... And you can't defend for other people..... Wait! the darkness! so my proposition is that if we could find a way to make this work. Make a Defense for three people in one deck and! have a workable offense for type two.

I can help but I can't figure out what to start with.... I'm thinking, of course, darkness and maybe self.. what would go best to make this happen OR IS IT EVEN POSSIBLE???

Thanks,
KingLeo

Redoubter · « **Reply #1 on:** December 25, 2012, 08:53:44 PM »

I'm confused as to what you mean about others' lost souls in T2. If there is a type that has an issue with not being able to rely on the ability of others to block, it is T1-MP, not T2. In T2, you have an equal number of good and evil cards, which means that literally everyone will have defense at least at the rate they will have offense.

As far as blocking for others, that will likely not happen. The way cards are ruled currently, most of the cards that seem like they should allow you to give others defense have been stated to not allow for that, and I doubt that will be changing.

But truly, if you are having trouble with a lack of blocks made by others in T2-MP, someone is playing it wrong. And maybe a deck-check is in order

Rawrlolsauce! · « **Reply #2 on:** December 25, 2012, 08:56:42 PM »

I used to use like 3x The Darkness, Trembling Demons, Deceiving Spirits, Uzzahs, Leviathans, Doubt, etc in T2. It was both awesome and terrible.

I also used Gates to get a Demon banding chain out then put Wandering Spirit or Gomer in the Darkness.

everytribe · « **Reply #3 on:** December 25, 2012, 10:21:34 PM »

I think I'm going to put 4 AoCP's in my next type 2 multi-player deck. That would definitely change the game a bit.

KingLeo · « **Reply #4 on:** December 25, 2012, 10:30:38 PM »

SO sorry meant T1-2

KingLeo

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #5 on:** December 27, 2012, 11:22:39 PM »

There have been various attempts to make T1M a legitimate category, but all have failed. Any attempts will always fail due to the very nature of the category. Case in point: I accidentally took 3rd in T1M at Natz. Any category where someone can accidentally place at Natz isn't a legitimate category. I'm strongly in support of getting rid of it altogether in favor of the much more popular and better Teams category.

Chris · « **Reply #6 on:** December 27, 2012, 11:26:30 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on December 27, 2012, 11:22:39 PM

There have been various attempts to make T1M a legitimate category, but all have failed. Any attempts will always fail due to the very nature of the category. Case in point: I accidentally took 3rd in T1M at Natz. Any category where someone can accidentally place at Natz isn't a legitimate category. I'm strongly in support of getting rid of it altogether in favor of the much more popular and better Teams category.

That last game was outrageous in all the right ways. I agree that MP needs a rule change or otherwise should be disbanded entirely though.

jbeers285 · « **Reply #7 on:** December 28, 2012, 12:14:59 AM »

Quote from: Chris on December 27, 2012, 11:26:30 PM

Quote from: Minister Polarius on December 27, 2012, 11:22:39 PM
There have been various attempts to make T1M a legitimate category, but all have failed. Any attempts will always fail due to the very nature of the category. Case in point: I accidentally took 3rd in T1M at Natz. Any category where someone can accidentally place at Natz isn't a legitimate category. I'm strongly in support of getting rid of it altogether in favor of the much more popular and better Teams category.

That last game was outrageous in all the right ways. I agree that MP needs a rule change or otherwise should be disbanded entirely though.

require each player to play a minimum of 15 evil cards

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #8 on:** December 28, 2012, 12:36:11 AM »

CM, DoN, Mayhem, FA, Vitellus, Sabbath Breaker, Proud Pharisee, Damsel, EM, Divination, Manny, Uzzah, Gomer, Plot, that Brown drawing card. Problem solved?

Red · « **Reply #9 on:** December 28, 2012, 02:04:03 AM »

Make it where good and evil must be balanced. I heard type three multi was fun:p

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #10 on:** December 28, 2012, 11:53:58 AM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on December 27, 2012, 11:22:39 PM

I'm strongly in support of getting rid of it altogether in favor of the much more popular and better Teams category.

Quote from: Red on December 28, 2012, 02:04:03 AM

Make it where good and evil must be balanced. I heard type three multi was fun:p

Considering that TEAMS is already an official category, and considering that everyone playing in ROOT this past month has really enjoyed the T3 format, I am currently thinking about the possibilities of replacing T1-mp with T3.

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #11 on:** December 28, 2012, 12:15:47 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on December 28, 2012, 11:53:58 AM

Quote from: Minister Polarius on December 27, 2012, 11:22:39 PM
I'm strongly in support of getting rid of it altogether in favor of the much more popular and better Teams category.
Considering that TEAMS is already an official category, and considering that everyone playing in ROOT this past month has really enjoyed the T3 format, I am currently thinking about the possibilities of replacing T1-mp with T3.

The issue is we currently have more categories than we have people for. The more categories we have, the more we have to divide up people per category, which results in less competition for a given event. So categories kinda just leech off each other, and as we're getting less and less people each year at Nationals, I think it's high time to drop a category to fill up the categories again.

The issue with dropping T1-Multi is that Nationals isn't everything. I know the kids in our playgroup here in Rochester enjoy T1-Multiplayer for locals and districts, and it's a way they can play without having to have tons of money for T2 or Closed categories. They prefer Teams, but the trouble with Teams is if there's a guy nobody wants to play with, he gets left out and alone to die in the cold thinking dark thoughts to a bitter end, which we also can't have.

But for the most part, I agree with Pol. I would love to see more posts on the Teams deck advice thread, as I think building Teams decks is way more strategic than any of the other T1 categories, and there are far more viable options.

Josh · « **Reply #12 on:** December 28, 2012, 12:20:25 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on December 27, 2012, 11:22:39 PM

I accidentally took 3rd in T1M at Natz. Any category where someone can accidentally place at Natz isn't a legitimate category.

I would love to hear this story sometime. Is there a Natz recap thread somewhere that included it?

browarod · « **Reply #13 on:** December 28, 2012, 12:45:17 PM »

The problem I have with Teams replacing Multiplayer is that MP is something you can come prepared on your own to play in, whereas Teams requires contact and strategizing with another person if you want to stand any kind of chance (i.e.: 2 people that show up to a tourney and get paired together because everyone else is already on a team are going to get walloped unless they happen to have decks that have really good synergy). For people on their own, attending their first tournament with a new playgroup for example, Teams isn't very appealing for that very reason.

There's also the fact that Teams requires having a team on a bye every round with any amount of players that's not a multiple of 4. MP, on the other hand, can allow everyone to play every round because the table sizes are flexible (anywhere from 3-5 is legal for the extra table). While byes aren't the end of the world, it's a bit boring for the person/team having to sit out and MP allows for continuous play for all participants.

Plus MP is my favorite category so I don't want to see it go.

wyatt_marcum · « **Reply #14 on:** December 29, 2012, 03:02:01 PM »

make T1 multi T3 multi instead if there are problems with defence. that would be the best solution to that problem. make it where it has to be a balanced deck.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #15 on:** December 29, 2012, 07:15:35 PM »

Quote from: wyatt_marcum on December 29, 2012, 03:02:01 PM

make T1 multi T3 multi instead if there are problems with defence. that would be the best solution to that problem. make it where it has to be a balanced deck.

I like this suggestion!

Chris · « **Reply #16 on:** December 29, 2012, 08:22:30 PM »

I've actually always been a fan of the idea of a communal Lost Soul pool. I don't know how special abilities or sites would work, but the basic idea is that Lost Souls are placed in a common area, and when someone makes a rescue attempt, the person on the rescuer's left has the chance to block or pass, then the person to their left if they pass, and so on, similar to the way Teams works.

cookie monster · « **Reply #17 on:** December 29, 2012, 11:25:31 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on December 29, 2012, 07:15:35 PM

Quote from: wyatt_marcum on December 29, 2012, 03:02:01 PM
make T1 multi T3 multi instead if there are problems with defence. that would be the best solution to that problem. make it where it has to be a balanced deck.
I like this suggestion!

This might be the best idea I've heard on this whole thread!

Quote from: Chris on December 29, 2012, 08:22:30 PM

I've actually always been a fan of the idea of a communal Lost Soul pool. I don't know how special abilities or sites would work, but the basic idea is that Lost Souls are placed in a common area, and when someone makes a rescue attempt, the person on the rescuer's left has the chance to block or pass, then the person to their left if they pass, and so on, similar to the way Teams works.

And this idea sounds interesting too. Are you suggesting a multi game with a communal soul pool? I might have to try this sometime.

Redoubter · « **Reply #18 on:** December 30, 2012, 02:29:07 AM »

Quote from: cookie monster on December 29, 2012, 11:25:31 PM

Quote from: Prof Underwood on December 29, 2012, 07:15:35 PM
Quote from: wyatt_marcum on December 29, 2012, 03:02:01 PM
make T1 multi T3 multi instead if there are problems with defence. that would be the best solution to that problem. make it where it has to be a balanced deck.
I like this suggestion!

This might be the best idea I've heard on this whole thread!

In our area, we've been testing T3 as a MP-only category. We actually did this at the one tournament we've had so far (there have been some issues getting everyone together). When I get back on track on my end, I'll post some more info here

EDIT:

Alright, the T3 site I made is back up and running! Sorry for the delay, it went down after the storm, and family problems prevented us from getting it back up until now (our family owns the box that the site runs on).

Right now, all posts are viewable (so you can see the rules and rankings anytime), but registration is set to admin-approval. The amount of spam accounts we get is ridiculous, and I can't prune them fast enough, so this is how we'll have to go. Please send me a PM when you sign up so I can activate you right away

On the rules, after play-testing it for a few months we went to a multi category with equal good-evil, 60-63 cards in the deck, and provisions for Plot that are similar to T2. You can see the reasoning for that on the site.

Also, as I have said before and put on the site as well, there will be trophies and prizes a the end of the year. These will be provided by me, and there will be no additional charge to hosts to participate in T3 rankings. I want to encourage play-testing the category and provide something fun to those who do it more often

We'll be having more tournaments in the Maryland area that include T3, but anyone can host them as long as they get posted.

If you have any questions, just send me a PM

News:

Author Topic: Can we change Type 1 Multiplayer? (Read 4350 times)

Rawrlolsauce!

Chris

Warrior_Monk

browarod

Chris