Cactus Game Design Message Boards

I just read all your posts so far on the blog.  Here are my thoughts:

1 - in the first post you called the blog the "evolution" from the video content.  It seems to me that going from video to simply text is a de-evolution.

2 - the most recent two posts were well written, though-provoking, and I think would be really helpful to the community at large.  However, why bother putting them on a personal blog?  They would have made great forum threads where people could easily see them and start a dialog on the subject.

By posting content like this on a personal blog you will decrease the number of people who are likely to read it and benefit from it.  Part of the draw of Redemption Metagaming was that it provided something that the forum cannot (video content).  But the forum is great for providing discussions about strategic deck-teching and deck-building.  So duplicating that somewhere else seems like the wrong direction to go.

1. We aren't switching from video content to blog content completely, we are merely adding blog content. Right now Alex and I are having a tough time matching schedules, and so for now Blogging is easier.

I'm glad that you'll keep the videos comings as well.  If your schedules aren't matching up, perhaps a better solution to moving backwards to text is to increase the size of your group.  If you added one or two other people besides you and Alex, then you would greatly increase the chances of being able to match up two people's schedule to get in a game or a short conversation about a specific topic.

Additionally, awhile back I posted the process of building a CTB deck, which wasn't the best of articles, sure, but it facilitated no discussion. Most of the content will be similar to that.

So instead of continuing to focus on videos that have sparked significant discussion here on the boards, you are going to try to put out more of something that flopped before?  And you're going to put it in a place where even less people are likely to see it?

Finally, a blog also allows us to archive it easier. In a blog, these subjects will be on there forever, and you can easily access it in the sidebar.

This is actually not that hard to do here on the forum either.  All you need is 1 locked thread that you use as a table of contents.  Then in the posts of that thread you simply provide links to all of the separate threads discussing all of the different content that you like.  If the threads that you post all continue to be of the high quality of the "cost analysis" post Alex wrote, then I would be glad to even sticky the table of contents thread so that people could easily go there to look up stuff.

1 - in the first post you called the blog the "evolution" from the video content.  It seems to me that going from video to simply text is a de-evolution.

As the husband of someone who wrote a book, the idea that words are less valuable than video is the last criticism I'd have thought for you to bring to the table. Is a book less valuable than a movie?

2 - the most recent two posts were well written, though-provoking, and I think would be really helpful to the community at large.  However, why bother putting them on a personal blog?  They would have made great forum threads where people could easily see them and start a dialog on the subject.

By posting content like this on a personal blog you will decrease the number of people who are likely to read it and benefit from it.  Part of the draw of Redemption Metagaming was that it provided something that the forum cannot (video content).  But the forum is great for providing discussions about strategic deck-teching and deck-building.  So duplicating that somewhere else seems like the wrong direction to go.

A personal blog is the first step to a website. If you continue to support the Redemption MetaGaming blog, you'd be surprised where it could go.

Traditionally article-type media has performed terrible here on the forums. While most attempts have been lackluster at best in their writing skill or depth of content (Sorry Westy ), that doesn't change the fact that there is no recent track record to suggest we should have put those posts into topics. While Redemption MetaGaming is about creating a discussion of Redemption on some level, it's also not up to us to force a discussion upon you. If you think it was an interesting post and have some responses, why don't you start the forum thread? Redemption MetaGaming is, like it or not, a personal project of myself and Westy. I think we would both agree that the blog/essay/article style is far superior for what we primarily want to accomplish with Redemption MetaGaming when compared to the conversational style of the forums.

I'd also argue that a blog is arguably easier to find that a forum topic, but that's semantics. Both are going to be found by the same people so it's pretty irrelevant in my eyes.

I'm glad that you'll keep the videos comings as well.  If your schedules aren't matching up, perhaps a better solution to moving backwards to text is to increase the size of your group.  If you added one or two other people besides you and Alex, then you would greatly increase the chances of being able to match up two people's schedule to get in a game or a short conversation about a specific topic.

While adding other people to Redemption MetaGaming may be prudent in the future, Westy and I have the vision for this content driven form of media currently, and given the track record of collaborative projects in this community, I think two is plenty of people. Additionally, adding more people with different perspectives would actually make it harder to coordinate as it'd be much better to have all contributors on a show if possible.

Additionally, currently the contributor to audience ratio is about 1 contributor per 20 audience members (and that's being incredibly generous to the audience size). I don't think it would make sense to add more contributors unless our audience were to grow. Redemption MetaGaming was not designed or intended to be a community project in the sense that all contribute to it.


Thanks for your overall feedback and compliments on our content.

I do agree with you that a book is NOT less valuable than a movie, and in fact most movies based on books are NOT as good as the book.  However how many people have read the unabridged "Count of Monte Christo"?  How many people have seen the movie?  I'm just saying that in our current culture, a video will reach a wider audience.

I think that content in all forms is the best chance to reach the most people. This isn't closing videos. It's opening articles.

This is also a bit concerning, as it seems like if you offer the same kind of content on your website of the future that is currently delivered on the forum here, then there are only a couple of likely outcomes.  Either almost no one bothers to go there and you lose interest in your pet project and quit creating content.  Or a large number of people go there, and the forum basically fades away.  Personally I find the first scenario massively more likely, but neither is a good outcome.

I don't understand why a content website is at odds with a discussion forum. That's never been the case in any other game I've ever seen, heard of, or participated in, be it card, board, or video game.

I disagree.  When I think of "article-type media" here on the forum, the first thing that comes to mind is Bryon's annual articles about the new cards.  And they have performed terrifically.  They are extremely well liked, and consistently receive a decent number of responses.

Which also are not delivered via Forum Topic, for what it's worth. He just starts a thread about it. I actually forgot these even were articles because they are largely popular due to the new set spoilers. I'm not saying they aren't good articles, because they are, but new set hype typically drives their popularity (at least in my opinion).

I like the idea of the blog and content articles. I used to find Holder's Heroes both helpful and interesting. My only criticism is the contrast between the black background and white typeface is terrible. I tried to read it but I cannot. I hope you change to something easier on the eyes.

Thanks for letting us know. We can change that to something easier to read.

Quote from: Gabe on June 15, 2013, 02:09:52 AM

I like the idea of the blog and content articles. I used to find Holder's Heroes both helpful and interesting. My only criticism is the contrast between the black background and white typeface is terrible. I tried to read it but I cannot. I hope you change to something easier on the eyes.

Thanks for letting us know. We can change that to something easier to read.

The green text is definitely an improvement. I think that the solid black background is part of the problem. Have you considered changing the background to a dark shade of gray? It will still give the same effect but would be easier on the eyes.

As it is I'm able to select the text, which changes the background color now so I can read it. Thank you.

Back on subject, we're going to be streaming tomorrow at 5/4c, discussing NE Regional results and further development.

Fixed

Desecrate the Temple discarded my opponent's SoG in my 3rd, 4th, and 5th games.  I guess I was lucky with a 60% success rate.

Iron Pan honestly never crossed my mind.  I was satisfied with Naz/CWD/DD as techs that mesh with my deck.  Iron Pan would shut down my drawing and Nazareth, and would also stop Belshazzar's Banquet.  Plus your opponent can discard it without DoN, albeit at the cost of dumping their good fortress.

Swift Horses was in there basically for drawing, or a play-first in side-battle, or for King Belshazzar's recur.  And also to bring an intimidation factor.  Nerg with Horses sitting in my territory commands respect, even if I have nothing to play on him.

I've updated this deck with the new cards.  I dropped Great Image for Scattered, as you are right, there really aren't many blocks in the deck.  The anti-meta tech slows down your opponent, but honestly pulling off Great Image is a semi-pipe dream.  Because Scattered is in, I am keeping Swift Horses; otherwise, I'd drop it for Invoking Terror.  I added Jephthah, but only because I have Divination and Deborah's Directive in the deck.  I can discard a LS with him, and I can band him in off of Deb's Directive to win a battle.  Otherwise, I think he clashes a bit with my U&T/CWD play, although U&T will now tell me if they have something to negate him with.  I added a 3-Liner and dropped the deck discard LS, as pulling off DtT makes a 3-Liner insanely valuable (although that has nothing to do with the new cards).  I also (and I am going to test this before I keep the change) dropped NJ for Vain Philosophy.  My reasoning:  With Sorrow of Mary and Vain Philosophy, SoG being underdecked hurts a lot if you also run NJ; plus, Vain Philosophy can increase the chances that DtT works.  Like I said, I'll test it for now.

I haven't played that many games since the new cards came out for RTS (pretty much just ROOT games), and I have never seen an offense similar to mine.  This was an idea I had been toying around with in my head for months, I just never put it on paper. 

I enjoyed your latest livecast.

I liked how you did some deck dissection of recent winners of major tournaments.

I liked how you talked about your own experiences with successful decks (although if a deck goes 12-2, it seems like it would be worth mentioning something explaining the 2 losses).

I liked how you mentioned the new rulings like the required card sleeves, the SoG/Hopper combo, and the clarification on special initiative.

I liked your asking the community for a cool slogan, although I'm way to cheezy to be good at that sort of thing personally

It was still a bit long, but it seems like that's a bit inevitable in your current format.  I understand that is part of why you are moving towards the blog.  But have you considered doing a bit of video editing as an alternative?  Some simple splicing would REALLY be a nice thing to have for your videos.

It's a live show, you can't edit live. It posts straight to youtube when their done and I think this is best. First off it gives people who came in at the end to immediately see what they missed, it requires the least amount of work from them, and it takes care of the ordinarily lengthy process of youtube processing.

QFT

Combine your two slogans:

Redemption MetaGaming: Giving you the classy edge.

Another article has hit the presses!

So for the most part I agree with you one the dominant rankings, but there are a few I disagree with.

1) Falling Away - Yes its no longer a staple, and yes its completely stopped by two other cards, but its base power is unmatched by any other evil dominant.  I still agree mostly with its placing, except beneath two specific dominants, which I will get to in a second.

2) Harvest Time - You are really going to bash Mayhem for being hit by Nazareth, but not mention it at all when its Harvest time's turn?  Harvest time is a card that is stopped by a rather popular card, and has various alternatives (water jar, call, fishers, hopper, etc.), it really should not be rated above Falling Away.

3) Mayhem - Look, I know you are saying Nazareth shuts down one of the best parts of mayhem, and it totally does, but that doesn't take away from its other benefits.  In enhancement-lite decks (like many are now), it can be just a straight draw when you need it, and if your opponent doesn't play naz (or you know, doesn't draw it), the ability limit your opponent's hand size is still very powerful.  All in all, not the best dominant, but not nearly as bad as you make it out.

4) Burial - The only time you should be using burial in your deck is if you are running the 2/3-liner and other return to deck cards for souls.  Other than that, with the amount of soul gen out there, it really isn't that great.  Again, you bash Falling Away for its counters, but then completely neglect to say that one of those "commonly played counters" counters burial as well.  And though not as common as GoYS, I still do see the anti-burial soul get used.

I guess in summery of what I'm trying to say, Falling Away and Mayhem are both better than you give them credit for, though not too much better, and should be considered for the last couple dominant slots in deck building, and you give Harvest time and burial too much credit, though I mostly agree with what your saying (and I don't think anyone should argue at all about the top 5 doms).

As a side-note, Strife (while still pretty bad, and quite deserving of its placement) does have some offensive capability.

Your rankings of dominants seem biased due to being an offense-heavy player:

Quote

Son of God - obviously offense
New Jerusalem - obviously offense
Vain Philosophy
Angel of the Lord - obviously offense
Grapes of Wrath - probably offense
Christian Martyr
Destruction of Nehushtan - most arts used now are defensive, so eliminating them helps the offense

Only 2 of your top 7 dominants are primarily defensive.

Type I is biased to offense-heavy

Edit:  Also Grapes is just as much defensive as it is offensive.