Cactus Game Design Message Boards

I love how passionate people are about this game!

Quote from: Red Dragon Thorn on April 16, 2015, 10:10:18 PM

Totally disagree with that too.

Totally disagree with what?  The numbers are what the numbers are.

My disagreement isn't with your numbers, I'm sure they're correct - My disagreement lies with the conclusion that you draw from them.

There is more variety in viable decks now, than at any other time in the games history. We play more balanced decks now than at any point in the games history, if that's not healthy I don't know what is

Quote

Just to be clear, I was responding specifically to the claim that more draw == more fun == more players. Do you think having 60 players playing the premier game (T1-2P) at the premier tournament (Nationals) is a sign that the game is thriving?

I don't think that's a good argument, there are a number of factors far beyond simple gameplay mechanics that contribute to the decline of player numbers at nationals.

Furthermore, despite their only being 60 players in T1, I would argue that the quality of games played was higher last year than at previous nationals.

Just to be clear, I was responding specifically to the claim that more draw == more fun == more players. Do you think having 60 players playing the premier game (T1-2P) at the premier tournament (Nationals) is a sign that the game is thriving?

This is just a ridiculous and ludicrous statement.  The decline of number of players in the game is due to many other issues than the printing of draw cards.

For reference:

T12P Top Decks (1st-3rd)

2014:

1st - Good - 24 - Evil - 16 - Auto? - NO
2nd - Good - 19 - Evil - 18 - Auto? - YES
3rd - Good - 21 - Evil - 18 - Auto? - YES

2013:

1st - Good - 18 - Evil - 19 - Auto? - NO
2nd - Good - 23 - Evil - 17 - Auto? - YES
3rd - Good - 20 - Evil - 11 - Auto? NO

2012:

1st - Good - 20 - Evil - 17 - Auto? - NO
2nd - Good - 27 - Evil - 13 - Auto? - YES
3rd - Data Unavailable - Jonathan Greeson, not sure breakdown, but he had Auto

2011: (Note, Pre-Auto, and Pre-Domcap)

1st - Good - 28 - Evil - 11
2nd - Good - 29 - Evil - 9
- Note, Andrew Played 2 decks, I'm not sure how many rounds for each.
3rd - Good - 24 - Evil - 13
3rd - Good - 13 - Evil - 39

Justin Sangrillo placed third. Not Maly.  http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/redemption_tournament_rankings_2013.php http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/deck-building-and-design/3-t1-2p-decks-from-nationals-2013/

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on April 16, 2015, 10:31:11 PM

Just to be clear, I was responding specifically to the claim that more draw == more fun == more players. Do you think having 60 players playing the premier game (T1-2P) at the premier tournament (Nationals) is a sign that the game is thriving?

This is just a ridiculous and ludicrous statement.  The decline of number of players in the game is due to many other issues than the printing of draw cards.

Because you would know? Enlighten us.

Right but if gameplay was fine then lack of news of a new set wouldn't matter.

I don't think that's a good argument, there are a number of factors far beyond simple gameplay mechanics that contribute to the decline of player numbers at nationals.

This is just a ridiculous and ludicrous statement.  The decline of number of players in the game is due to many other issues than the printing of draw cards.

Both of you are attributing an argument to me that I never made. The argument was made that "more draw == more fun == more players."  With the exception of TexP[1], Redemption printed more cards with draw abilities in *every single set* post-Priests than it did in all pre-Priests sets combined. If the "more cards == more fun == more players" argument were true you would expect to see the game booming. I think we can all agree that Redemption's popularity is not exactly waxing at the moment.

[1]TexP consisted of sixty cards total and contained one fewer draw card than all the pre-Priests sets combined.

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on April 17, 2015, 02:07:43 AM

Both of you are attributing an argument to me that I never made.

Matt, I think we both know that you're smart enough to know that correlation isn't causation, which is what you've claimed multiple times now in this thread.

John, I think we both know that you are smart enough to follow an argument. That being the case I really do not understand why you feel the need to keep attributing a position to me me that not only have I not made, but have expressly said (twice now) that I am *not* making.

AUTO's ability is so powerful, it's something you'd expect with a "Once per game" clause, like King Amaziah.  I'm not sure what would fix him.

Taking away the D2:  He'd still get used all the time, although maybe with less frequency.  He'd get exchanged for Gideon more and Sam/Jair/Ehud/Moses less.  Infinite unconditional bulletproofing, with so few "regardless of protection" cards, and 4 high quality CBN cards to play on Gid (Edict, Sword Against Sword, Deb's Directive, Ehud's Dagger) make for good rescue attempts.  And he still works wiith Simeon/Jacob for CBN banding with Moses.

Taking away CBN:  Now Covenant With Death, Golden Calf, and Tower become more popular to stop him...  Or everyone just plays AUTO like they always did, since all three of those cards can stop your own heroes too.

Take away D2 and CBN:  This might get AUTO into the realm of "not in most competitive decks". 

Make his ability once per game:  This would make him used less.  Not sure how less though.

For reference:

T12P Top Decks (1st-3rd)

2014:

1st - Good - 24 - Evil - 16 - Auto? - NO
2nd - Good - 19 - Evil - 18 - Auto? - YES
3rd - Good - 21 - Evil - 18 - Auto? - YES

2013:

1st - Good - 18 - Evil - 19 - Auto? - NO
2nd - Good - 23 - Evil - 17 - Auto? - YES
3rd - Good - 23 - Evil - 13 - Auto? - NO

2012:

1st - Good - 20 - Evil - 17 - Auto? - NO
2nd - Good - 27 - Evil - 13 - Auto? - YES
3rd - Data Unavailable - Jonathan Greeson, not sure breakdown, but he had Auto

2011: (Note, Pre-Auto, and Pre-Domcap)

1st - Good - 28 - Evil - 11
2nd - Good - 29 - Evil - 9
- Note, Andrew Played 2 decks, I'm not sure how many rounds for each.
3rd - Good - 24 - Evil - 13
3rd - Good - 13 - Evil - 39

John, Greeson used this deck for 3rd in 2012. He used several different LS and doninants but the balance of cards should have been identical or 1 more good than listed (and 1 less evil).
http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/national-tournament-winners/t1-2p-judges-assyrianmagicians/

Then again, I wasn't the one who added a snarky interpretation of my quote earlier

Unfortunately, condescension tends to induce snark.

Quote from: Red Dragon Thorn on April 16, 2015, 10:55:49 PM

I don't think that's a good argument, there are a number of factors far beyond simple gameplay mechanics that contribute to the decline of player numbers at nationals.

Quote from: Drrek on April 16, 2015, 11:09:27 PM

This is just a ridiculous and ludicrous statement.  The decline of number of players in the game is due to many other issues than the printing of draw cards.

Both of you are attributing an argument to me that I never made. The argument was made that "more draw == more fun == more players."  With the exception of TexP[1], Redemption printed more cards with draw abilities in *every single set* post-Priests than it did in all pre-Priests sets combined. If the "more cards == more fun == more players" argument were true you would expect to see the game booming. I think we can all agree that Redemption's popularity is not exactly waxing at the moment.

[1]TexP consisted of sixty cards total and contained one fewer draw card than all the pre-Priests sets combined.

TEXP contains 8 cards with draw abilities. Of those draw abilities one is a d1. The sets before priests counting all cards with "Draw" abilities total to 29 cards. Please check your facts. Not trying to be rude or anything I just want the facts to be correct.

And once we errata AUtO into something unusable, what's the next big-bad card we'll target to make sure no one ever uses it again?  U+T?  TGT?  ANB again just for fun?

There will always be some cards that are OP.  AUtO is definitely one of them, but I'm not in favor of errata to remove from the game a card that can actually be dealt with through existing counters and doesn't actually break the game (which is what we look for in erratas).