Author Topic: Suggested Rule Changes to Teams (Read 12021 times)

Chris · « **on:** August 04, 2014, 04:56:51 PM »

After a few years as an official category, should Teams consider rule changes?

Redoubter · « **Reply #1 on:** August 04, 2014, 06:17:41 PM »

I agree that perhaps it is time to look at new rule changes since it has been run officially for some time.

Personally, I'm in favor of banning SoG/NJ, but I would say we have some other options. Like, just ban NJ from the category. About the same effect, and it is the bigger problem here. Alternatively, restrict dominants to 1 copy per team, not per deck. I honestly hate the way we track dominants anyway, because having them in discard pile is very important for several abilities. Having only 1 copy per team means you don't have to track it the way we do and you get more diversity between the two decks and options opening up.

As far as your other idea, I like the discussion, but disagree with the answer. Instead, I would argue that having a different maximum deck size would be preferable. That way, we do not have drastically different deckbuilding for the type, but still manage to head off the type of problem you foresee. T2 is 252 cards (35 souls), T1 is 154 cards (21 souls), so why not have Teams be 70 cards (9 souls)?

Chris · « **Reply #2 on:** August 04, 2014, 07:26:26 PM »

Quote from: Redoubter on August 04, 2014, 06:17:41 PM

Personally, I'm in favor of banning SoG/NJ, but I would say we have some other options. Like, just ban NJ from the category.

Two players going after four souls still seems a little quick for my taste. Banning NJ might be the safer option, but I think banning them both will be healthier for the category overall.

Quote

About the same effect, and it is the bigger problem here. Alternatively, restrict dominants to 1 copy per team, not per deck. I honestly hate the way we track dominants anyway, because having them in discard pile is very important for several abilities. Having only 1 copy per team means you don't have to track it the way we do and you get more diversity between the two decks and options opening up.

I didn't like this at first, but it's starting to grow on me a little more. I'm mulling it over. Maybe we can talk in the van.

Quote

As far as your other idea, I like the discussion, but disagree with the answer. Instead, I would argue that having a different maximum deck size would be preferable. That way, we do not have drastically different deckbuilding for the type, but still manage to head off the type of problem you foresee. T2 is 252 cards (35 souls), T1 is 154 cards (21 souls), so why not have Teams be 70 cards (9 souls)?

I threw around this idea for a while, looking at ways to solve that particular problem, and the conclusion I came to is that the less restrictive deck building requirements are, the better. If a team can actually put together large decks that are effective without duplicate cards, in my mind, they deserve to play them (under the current T1 deck building rules, because of Gates of Hell). Huge decks generally don't play well without duplicates, so I think it will solve the biggest problem, while still allowing for more flexibility.

ChristianSoldier · « **Reply #3 on:** August 04, 2014, 11:57:11 PM »

Alternatively you could just change the general T1 deck building rules to limit 1 copy of each card per deck, I doubt it would change all that much in any category, and while we are at it we could change the T2 deck building rules so that there is a maximum of 2 of Sites and Lost Souls with special abilities, that way the only think linked to the size of the deck is the total number of Lost Souls (and by extension the total number of dominants and sites)

Note: I really don't care if this doesn't get changed, but it's just another option.

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #4 on:** August 05, 2014, 12:14:47 AM »

Quote from: Chris on August 04, 2014, 07:26:26 PM

I threw around this idea for a while, looking at ways to solve that particular problem,

"That particular problem" being huge decks? Seriously?

TEAMS 2013 1st Place 53 Cards x2
TEAMS 2013 2nd Place 52 Cards x2
TEAMS 2013 3rd Place idk, did Wester/Olijar play a huge deck?

TEAMS 2012 1st Place 52(?) Cards x2
TEAMS 2012 2nd Place 50 Cards x2
TEAMS 2012 3rd Place 154 Cards x2

I played one of the 154 cards deck against both the TEAMS 2012 champions (at Nats) and the TEAMS 2013 champion deck (at both MN State and MW Regionals), and we lost all three games. There was a pretty darn good chance we would have lost all three games even if opponents decks didn't use SoG/NJ. Huge decks bring increased set up time and a huge variance in draw. (Against Early/Roepke, the draw we had would have lost to starter decks--or at least that was what I believed in the original reports a week or so after the event). Penalizing them further on the basis of theory-crafting about the results of a separate rule change is just unwarranted.

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #5 on:** August 05, 2014, 12:38:55 AM »

We played two almost identical versions of The Deck. There may have been 2 cards different other than dominants.

The Guardian · « **Reply #6 on:** August 05, 2014, 01:01:22 AM »

I'm honestly not a fan of either change. We all know the first card that should be banned (regardless of category) is A New Beginning. Furthermore, 154 decks are a legit strategy that can be fun to use, and even more so in TEAMs where a team could have one monster deck and one speed deck.

I agree that the dominant tracking is kinda iffy. I would be in favor of treating "used" dominants as being in the discard pile even if they are in the Land of Redemption for tracking purposes.

Redoubter · « **Reply #7 on:** August 05, 2014, 01:04:12 AM »

Quote from: The Guardian on August 05, 2014, 01:01:22 AM

I agree that the dominant tracking is kinda iffy. I would be in favor of treating "used" dominants as being in the discard pile even if they are in the Land of Redemption for tracking purposes.

I'm fairly sure that, for game purposes, they are in the discard pile. It gets iffy when they are not actually there for certain abilities to activate, is my problem. I'd actually say that bringing a proxy copy or separate tracker you can use for your team would be a better way to track it.

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #8 on:** August 05, 2014, 01:46:31 AM »

I'm fine with 154s. What I hate is seeing two decks that are almost identical. It chokes creativity.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #9 on:** August 05, 2014, 08:31:45 AM »

Quote from: Westy on August 05, 2014, 01:46:31 AM

I'm fine with 154s. What I hate is seeing two decks that are almost identical. It chokes creativity.

This is the fundamental flaw with any card game and the internet. I had the same problem at last year's Pokémon City Championship, where I faced almost identical Virizion EX/Genesect EX decks from two unrelated opponents, and my son played against a third one. Who knows how many others were out there. This was particularly troubling to me, since I was running a Blastoise deck. $:-\$

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #10 on:** August 05, 2014, 08:41:28 AM »

Quote from: Westy on August 05, 2014, 01:46:31 AM

I'm fine with 154s. What I hate is seeing two decks that are almost identical. It chokes creativity.

Unfortunately for this point of view, consistency usually tops creativity when it comes to top decks. Of the decks that placed at Nats in the past two years (the one listed above), four of the six had partner decks were within a half dozen cards of each other.

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #11 on:** August 05, 2014, 11:10:01 AM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on August 05, 2014, 08:31:45 AM

Quote from: Westy on August 05, 2014, 01:46:31 AM
I'm fine with 154s. What I hate is seeing two decks that are almost identical. It chokes creativity.

This is the fundamental flaw with any card game and the internet. I had the same problem at last year's Pokémon City Championship, where I faced almost identical Virizion EX/Genesect EX decks from two unrelated opponents, and my son played against a third one. Who knows how many others were out there. This was particularly troubling to me, since I was running a Blastoise deck. $:-\$

Nail on the head. This never used to be a problem with Pokemon, but since the internet exploded I can have the National winning deck card-for-card built the day-of it's winning. Too much information for competition.

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #12 on:** August 05, 2014, 12:35:21 PM »

Quote from: Westy on August 05, 2014, 11:10:01 AM

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on August 05, 2014, 08:31:45 AM
Quote from: Westy on August 05, 2014, 01:46:31 AM
I'm fine with 154s. What I hate is seeing two decks that are almost identical. It chokes creativity.

This is the fundamental flaw with any card game and the internet. I had the same problem at last year's Pokémon City Championship, where I faced almost identical Virizion EX/Genesect EX decks from two unrelated opponents, and my son played against a third one. Who knows how many others were out there. This was particularly troubling to me, since I was running a Blastoise deck. $:-\$
Nail on the head. This never used to be a problem with Pokemon, but since the internet exploded I can have the National winning deck card-for-card built the day-of it's winning. Too much information for competition.

Two things:

First, you can find--for basically any customizable card game--a huge discussion on the plusses and minusses of netdecking. The overall consensus is that it does limit deck design creativity but it also bumps the overall level of deck construction and forces improvements in strategic card play.

Second, I think it is strange that you bring this plaint up on these boards because Redemption (both official and the community) probably has the highest amount of deck secrecy and hence the lowest amount of netdecking of any game. (This possibly to the detriment of the game as a whole.)

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #13 on:** August 05, 2014, 01:44:48 PM »

These forums are great at being dead for information (for better and for worse, as you stated). The Pokemon forums, on the other hand are full of people just asking for lists. I think the ideal place is somewhere in between.

The original comment was meant for Teams though. It's really cool to see two different decks working together. Two of the same that just band to each other's characters gets old.

ChristianSoldier · « **Reply #14 on:** August 05, 2014, 03:42:50 PM »

The teams deck that I built (with my friend) was very similar, but it wasn't just because they banded together, the offense was based around Musician's Chambers, to take advantage of the shared Fortresses, we couldn't have done that if our offenses were vastly different.

But I understand the annoyance of always seeing two identical decks in teams, but the only way to stop that is to limit cards per team rather than per deck.

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #15 on:** August 05, 2014, 04:57:13 PM »

Quote from: ChristianSoldier on August 05, 2014, 03:42:50 PM

But I understand the annoyance of always seeing two identical decks in teams, but the only way to stop that is to limit cards per team rather than per deck.

Which isn't practical from a deck-checking standpoint. I get that.

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #16 on:** August 05, 2014, 10:12:23 PM »

Quote from: Westy on August 05, 2014, 04:57:13 PM

Quote from: ChristianSoldier on August 05, 2014, 03:42:50 PM
But I understand the annoyance of always seeing two identical decks in teams, but the only way to stop that is to limit cards per team rather than per deck.
Which isn't practical from a deck-checking standpoint. I get that.

Unless you did like every other CCG/LCG and required players to submit deck lists.

Master KChief · « **Reply #17 on:** August 06, 2014, 12:44:56 AM »

I almost forgot how archaic Redemption still is in that regard.

Chris · « **Reply #18 on:** August 11, 2014, 10:34:04 PM »

Quote

Penalizing them further on the basis of theory-crafting about the results of a separate rule change is just unwarranted.

MJB, I'm not suggesting that huge decks are the best thing in the category right now, but the main thing that holds them back in Teams is the time needed to set up in games that don't have optimal draws. If that was lengthened by at least a full round, the odds of those decks performing better would increase quite a bit. In talking to a few other people about it, including people with a wealth of experience in Teams, along with a couple of the Elders, I don't seem to be alone in this thinking. Even if 154's aren't as dangerous as I think they would be in Teams, they're not particularly fun to play against to most people, and I wouldn't mind seeing them fundamentally neutered in at least one category.

Tim Maly suggested that when you rescue a Lost Soul in Teams, your teammate cannot make a rescue on their following turn (with the caveat that large decks be neutered). I think I like this better than the original suggestion, especially since it won't really increase the length of games that much (since most of the time in Teams is taken up by the battle phase).

Professoralstad · « **Reply #19 on:** August 11, 2014, 10:49:30 PM »

The only change to Teams that I would like to see is to get rid of the table talk aspect, at least when it comes to decision-making. Maybe talking it over after decisions are made is fine, but otherwise, it should be treated more like a T1-MP game. That way most of the integrated strategy is planned with the team beforehand, and people don't have to wait 5 minutes for a team to decide in some of the most ridiculous and complicated coded jargon what one of the players is going to do. I would really hate to see SoG/NJ (or even just NJ) banned for that very reason...most if not all of the Teams games I have played have either been really short (the minority) or really long/timeouts. And a lot of that time goes to the amount of discussion had between teammates.

Drrek · « **Reply #20 on:** August 11, 2014, 10:54:32 PM »

Quote from: Professoralstad on August 11, 2014, 10:49:30 PM

The only change to Teams that I would like to see is to get rid of the table talk aspect, at least when it comes to decision-making. Maybe talking it over after decisions are made is fine, but otherwise, it should be treated more like a T1-MP game. That way most of the integrated strategy is planned with the team beforehand, and people don't have to wait 5 minutes for a team to decide in some of the most ridiculous and complicated coded jargon what one of the players is going to do. I would really hate to see SoG/NJ (or even just NJ) banned for that very reason...most if not all of the Teams games I have played have either been really short (the minority) or really long/timeouts. And a lot of that time goes to the amount of discussion had between teammates.

Maybe its because I've only played teams in about 4 tournaments (though two of those were nats), but I have never had a problem running into time issues with teams, even when teams were talking for long times on what play to make. Teams games just don't seem to generally last enough rounds for the games to go to time even with the table talk in my experience.

jbeers285 · « **Reply #21 on:** August 11, 2014, 10:58:30 PM »

Quote from: Professoralstad on August 11, 2014, 10:49:30 PM

The only change to Teams that I would like to see is to get rid of the table talk aspect, at least when it comes to decision-making. Maybe talking it over after decisions are made is fine, but otherwise, it should be treated more like a T1-MP game. That way most of the integrated strategy is planned with the team beforehand, and people don't have to wait 5 minutes for a team to decide in some of the most ridiculous and complicated coded jargon what one of the players is going to do. I would really hate to see SoG/NJ (or even just NJ) banned for that very reason...most if not all of the Teams games I have played have either been really short (the minority) or really long/timeouts. And a lot of that time goes to the amount of discussion had between teammates.

Personally I love all the complicated jargon and talk it's amazing. When talk out what your opponents plans to do on a block and get it right it's so fun to see them react to that. Or when you say a bunch of crud that means nothing to throw them off the trail of your code words it's fun. I had more fun playing teams then anything else and it was only the 2nd time I had played teams. Blake and I had partnered for a state earlier in the season.

Side note prof underwood totally nailed Jerome and I's codes as Larry Norman lyrics . . . Blew me away

Long story short I agree with Blake.

The Guardian · « **Reply #22 on:** August 11, 2014, 11:01:27 PM »

Josiah,

I really wish Jayden and I had gotten a chance to play you and Jerome. That would have been an awesome game I think. Unfortunately we got nipped by one turn in round 1 and then faced a ridiculous draw in round 2, so we were middle of the pack most of the time.

jbeers285 · « **Reply #23 on:** August 11, 2014, 11:34:21 PM »

Quote from: The Guardian on August 11, 2014, 11:01:27 PM

Josiah,

I really wish Jayden and I had gotten a chance to play you and Jerome. That would have been an awesome game I think. Unfortunately we got nipped by one turn in round 1 and then faced a ridiculous draw in round 2, so we were middle of the pack most of the time.

Totally agreed perhaps we do that through a google doc sometime?

Drrek · « **Reply #24 on:** August 11, 2014, 11:37:48 PM »

Quote from: jbeers285 on August 11, 2014, 11:34:21 PM

Quote from: The Guardian on August 11, 2014, 11:01:27 PM
Josiah,

I really wish Jayden and I had gotten a chance to play you and Jerome. That would have been an awesome game I think. Unfortunately we got nipped by one turn in round 1 and then faced a ridiculous draw in round 2, so we were middle of the pack most of the time.

Totally agreed perhaps we do that through a google doc sometime?

I feel like Lackey might support multi player, but don't quote me on that.

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #25 on:** August 11, 2014, 11:42:22 PM »

Quote from: Drrek on August 11, 2014, 11:37:48 PM

I feel like Lackey might support multi player, but don't quote me on that.

Lackey natively supports multiplayer (and booster and sealed and TEAMs).

Quote from: Chris on August 11, 2014, 10:34:04 PM

Quote
Penalizing them further on the basis of theory-crafting about the results of a separate rule change is just unwarranted.
MJB, I'm not suggesting that huge decks are the best thing in the category right now, but the main thing that holds them back in Teams is the time needed to set up in games that don't have optimal draws.

As I pointed out previously, results from previous tournaments and prior play experience both provide actual evidence against your hypothesis.

Quote

In talking to a few other people about it, including people with a wealth of experience in Teams, along with a couple of the Elders, I don't seem to be alone in this thinking.

It really doesn't matter what all these people think, if it is contradicted by actual evidence. If your concerns were warranted, you would expect to see more than huge deck placing at Nats in the five years that TEAMS has been an official category. Yet we do not. If your concerns were warranted you would expect to see a people regularly playing huge decks in T1 2P with its slightly slower set up pace. Yet we do not.

Quote

Even if 154's aren't as dangerous as I think they would be in Teams, they're not particularly fun to play against to most people, and I wouldn't mind seeing them fundamentally neutered in at least one category.

Here we come to the real nub of it, as you made your disdain for large decks clear in your original blog post. We could all name decks we don't enjoy playing against--for me Genyptians would be nearer the top than most--but I'm not sure we want to start down the path of neutering decks simply because individuals players have a personal dislike of facing them.

Redoubter · « **Reply #26 on:** August 11, 2014, 11:51:21 PM »

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on August 11, 2014, 11:42:22 PM

Quote
Even if 154's aren't as dangerous as I think they would be in Teams, they're not particularly fun to play against to most people, and I wouldn't mind seeing them fundamentally neutered in at least one category.
Here we come to the real nub of it, as you made your disdain for large decks clear in your original blog post. We could all name decks we don't enjoy playing against--for me Genyptians would be nearer the top than most--but I'm not sure we want to start down the path of neutering decks simply because individuals players have a personal dislike of facing them.

Playing two traditional 154s in Teams is unfun, completely. And if they do not win, as you are pointing out, then why would you play them? That's the question.

Your whole post undercuts the validity of running 154s in Teams as a viable strategy, so the real question is why you would want to play with it, and the answer I see is that it is funny to play decks that are annoying to others. They go against the spirit of the game and are very bad for the game. There was a team running it at Nats, and I am almost certain they did not have a game end at time, which I don't know how you can argue is good for the category.

The Guardian · « **Reply #27 on:** August 11, 2014, 11:58:39 PM »

Quote from: Redoubter on August 11, 2014, 11:51:21 PM

There was a team running it at Nats, and I am almost certain they did not have a game end at time, which I don't know how you can argue is good for the category.

Well this just got awkward...

jbeers285 · « **Reply #28 on:** August 12, 2014, 12:00:27 AM »

Quote from: Redoubter on August 11, 2014, 11:51:21 PM

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on August 11, 2014, 11:42:22 PM
Quote
Even if 154's aren't as dangerous as I think they would be in Teams, they're not particularly fun to play against to most people, and I wouldn't mind seeing them fundamentally neutered in at least one category.
Here we come to the real nub of it, as you made your disdain for large decks clear in your original blog post. We could all name decks we don't enjoy playing against--for me Genyptians would be nearer the top than most--but I'm not sure we want to start down the path of neutering decks simply because individuals players have a personal dislike of facing them.

Playing two traditional 154s in Teams is unfun, completely. And if they do not win, as you are pointing out, then why would you play them? That's the question.

Your whole post undercuts the validity of running 154s in Teams as a viable strategy, so the real question is why you would want to play with it, and the answer I see is that it is funny to play decks that are annoying to others. They go against the spirit of the game and are very bad for the game. There was a team running it at Nats, and I am almost certain they did not have a game end at time, which I don't know how you can argue is good for the category.

Easy big fella, easy . . . . (I guess I'm a lot bigger then You so I guess I'm the big fella)

Emjaybee was one of the 2 gentlemen running one of the 154 if I am not mistaken on my Board name memory.

On an a side I feel like playing a 154 is trolling. I don't mind being trolled if they troll is fun about it but when it seems like the troll is doing to be rude or ruin the category for others I'm not a fan. I personally am on the train of the "I don't like playing against 154 card decks" train but I also hate PBI. Honestly though my feeling is if you wanna run more then 70 cards you should probably switch to T2, I honestly believe that person would enjoy play t2 more anyway.

The Guardian · « **Reply #29 on:** August 12, 2014, 12:05:50 AM »

Personally I feel that 154s are fine in TEAMs. I'm not saying I necessarily like facing them, because they can present certain challenges that a normal sized deck cannot. They are a high-risk, high-reward play, and to me that's just fine. They add some variety and should continue to do so with the new cards.

The Guardian · « **Reply #30 on:** August 12, 2014, 12:10:25 AM »

Quote

On an a side I feel like playing a 154 is trolling.

Craig and Matt are definitely not trolling anyone, and certainly not to be rude or ruin anything. They have a legit strategy that has had success in the past. I can say in all seriousness that I think I would have a really fun time playing with a deck like that.

I played against a 154 in the opening round of T1 2P in 2011, but it was the same thing. The person wasn't trolling, they just like the advantages of having a monster deck.

The only time I've ever seen anyone trolling to ruin a category was an individual (who shall remain nameless) that built a T2 MP deck that was designed for the sole purpose of drawing Lost Souls and then giving them away when he was attacked.

If you want an example of trolling, that's it.

The Guardian · « **Reply #31 on:** August 12, 2014, 12:19:30 AM »

Quote

There was a team running it at Nats, and I am almost certain they did not have a game end at time, which I don't know how you can argue is good for the category.

They timed out once. Jayden and I used balanced 56 card decks and we timed out 3 times (2 losses and a tie).

Are balanced 56 card decks bad for TEAMS?

Master KChief · « **Reply #32 on:** August 12, 2014, 12:27:57 AM »

Quote from: The Guardian on August 12, 2014, 12:10:25 AM

The only time I've ever seen anyone trolling to ruin a category was an individual (who shall remain nameless) that built a T2 MP deck that was designed for the sole purpose of drawing Lost Souls and then giving them away when he was attacked.

If you want an example of trolling, that's it.

Was this the deck with Limited Poisons and Bucklers? Good times.

The Guardian · « **Reply #33 on:** August 12, 2014, 12:32:28 AM »

IIRC it used ET, Claudia, Reach, Great Faith and Book of Hozai to do nothing but draw. The rest of the cards were limited and unlimited non-special ability cards.

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #34 on:** August 12, 2014, 02:09:30 AM »

Quote from: Redoubter on August 11, 2014, 11:51:21 PM

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on August 11, 2014, 11:42:22 PM
Quote
Even if 154's aren't as dangerous as I think they would be in Teams, they're not particularly fun to play against to most people, and I wouldn't mind seeing them fundamentally neutered in at least one category.
Here we come to the real nub of it, as you made your disdain for large decks clear in your original blog post. We could all name decks we don't enjoy playing against--for me Genyptians would be nearer the top than most--but I'm not sure we want to start down the path of neutering decks simply because individuals players have a personal dislike of facing them.
Playing two traditional 154s in Teams is unfun, completely. And if they do not win, as you are pointing out, then why would you play them? That's the question.

I was a member of a team that played a pair of 154s at Nationals in 2012 and took third out of 24 teams. My teammate and I chose to play those decks with the hope of having fun and winning a tournament. Why do you make your choice of decks?

Quote

There was a team running it at Nats, and I am almost certain they did not have a game end at time, which I don't know how you can argue is good for the category.

I am not sure who you are talking about here. As far as I know my partner and I were the only one playing 154s at the just concluded Nats, and we had five of six games end at time as you can verify by looking at the scoring spreadsheet. I am also fairly certain that we were never the last table to finish a round.

Redoubter · « **Reply #35 on:** August 12, 2014, 07:01:26 AM »

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on August 12, 2014, 02:09:30 AM

I was a member of a team that played a pair of 154s at Nationals in 2012 and took third out of 24 teams. My teammate and I chose to play those decks with the hope of having fun and winning a tournament. Why do you make your choice of decks?

And yet, when we look back through this thread, you have been saying how they are not a problem because they are not viable in the category at this time, and showing how the data proves that. Can't have it both ways.

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on August 12, 2014, 02:09:30 AM

I am not sure who you are talking about here. As far as I know my partner and I were the only one playing 154s at the just concluded Nats, and we had five of six games end at time as you can verify by looking at the scoring spreadsheet. I am also fairly certain that we were never the last table to finish a round.

Honestly, I handled other things while Teams finished, and did not pay attention to the time remaining just the tables left. I would see your table there quite often among the last, hence my statements. If you finished a majority of your rounds before 60 minutes were up, then that's great. I don't see how 154s can do that consistently, at least those built in the traditional way where lockout is the goal.

The Guardian · « **Reply #36 on:** August 12, 2014, 10:42:00 AM »

Quote

And yet, when we look back through this thread, you have been saying how they are not a problem because they are not viable in the category at this time, and showing how the data proves that. Can't have it both ways.

I think his point is that 154s are certainly viable, but obviously they haven't dominated the category.

I ask again...

Quote from: The Guardian on August 12, 2014, 12:19:30 AM

They timed out once. Jayden and I used balanced 56 card decks and we timed out 3 times (2 losses and a tie).

Are balanced 56 card decks bad for TEAMS?

SirNobody · « **Reply #37 on:** August 12, 2014, 12:29:45 PM »

Hey,

The issue of timeouts in teams might be more a matter of the players than the decks. John Earley pointed out while judging the category that teams that consisted of lead player and a follower tended to time out much less than teams that consisted of two players acting as equals. And I would guess that the players with a propensity to time out in two player (regardless of deck size) also probably end up on teams that time out more frequently.

I think 154 card decks in Teams (and in Type 1 in general) are similar to combo decks in Type 2. These decks are fun to design, add variety to the field, can win games, and are fun to play with. But playing against them is a NPE for most people and they aren't consistent in their performance (which means they almost never win tournaments, but can eliminate top players if the deck draws right - which ends up being a pretty bum deal for the top player who did nothing wrong other than getting paired up with a 154).

I think Jordan's suggestion of eliminating tabletalk from teams would eliminate the timeout problem. But I don't know that it's possible to define a set of rules for talking that the table that eliminates the tabletalk without significantly damaging the fun players get from playing with someone else.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

jbeers285 · « **Reply #38 on:** August 12, 2014, 12:47:52 PM »

Quote from: SirNobody on August 12, 2014, 12:29:45 PM

Hey,

The issue of timeouts in teams might be more a matter of the players than the decks. John Earley pointed out while judging the category that teams that consisted of lead player and a follower tended to time out much less than teams that consisted of two players acting as equals. And I would guess that the players with a propensity to time out in two player (regardless of deck size) also probably end up on teams that time out more frequently.

I think 154 card decks in Teams (and in Type 1 in general) are similar to combo decks in Type 2. These decks are fun to design, add variety to the field, can win games, and are fun to play with. But playing against them is a NPE for most people and they aren't consistent in their performance (which means they almost never win tournaments, but can eliminate top players if the deck draws right - which ends up being a pretty bum deal for the top player who did nothing wrong other than getting paired up with a 154).

I think Jordan's suggestion of eliminating tabletalk from teams would eliminate the timeout problem. But I don't know that it's possible to define a set of rules for talking that the table that eliminates the tabletalk without significantly damaging the fun players get from playing with someone else.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

Bingo Maly you hit this one on the head for me. You stated my feelings exactly.

Professoralstad · « **Reply #39 on:** August 12, 2014, 03:15:00 PM »

FWIW, the most fun game I played in Teams was vs. Craig and Matt. I see playing against a 154 (or two) as a puzzle; it comes down to knowing how to play against them. I also enjoy playing with them, and seeing how they can be constructed to play a full game in time. I am relatively certain that if I had not been playing a deck that was mostly defense, Craig and Matt I would have had a good chance to beat Jonathan and I in time. The nicest thing about the game was that they knew how to play their decks, and they knew that they had to play quickly to try to finish, so they didn't dawdle over decisions like most teams I have played.

As for table talk, I think that discussing strategy after decisions are made should be allowed, but I have played way too many games where minutes go by while a team is making a decision. The ridiculous codes just exacerbate the issue. I agree there would be difficulty in delineating when table talk is okay and when it is not, and if a reasonable solution can't be achieved, then I will survive. I rarely play the category and only did so because Jonathan decided to come to Nats, but I figured my opinion was worth positing.

As for the inconsistency point that Tim brought up, I think the same could be said for any top player who faces an insanely good draw. If Team Must got the draw they did vs. us every round, I'm convinced they would have won the category undefeated with a +26 differential. If a top player gets a bum deal from running into a a pair of 154s, then the same top player could get the same bum deal from running into the buzz saw that we experienced in that 5-turn game (that's right, the game ended on the first player's second turn). It was that brutal.

ChristianSoldier · « **Reply #40 on:** August 12, 2014, 04:37:40 PM »

I don't think I've ever faced the Table Talk induced timeouts in Teams, I haven't played it very much so maybe that's why, I did almost face a timeout caused by a rules question, but that's a different matter entirely.

At nationals a few years ago when I did play Teams, we both knew what we were doing well enough to basically not need to discuss strategy besides "do you have a block?" or "Just block with anything, I'll take care of it." and the occasional coded dominant message.

I don't think we should remove the Table Talk aspect of Teams, that's part of what makes it Teams, you're supposed to help each other.

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #41 on:** August 14, 2014, 08:49:59 AM »

Quote from: Redoubter on August 12, 2014, 07:01:26 AM

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on August 12, 2014, 02:09:30 AM
I was a member of a team that played a pair of 154s at Nationals in 2012 and took third out of 24 teams. My teammate and I chose to play those decks with the hope of having fun and winning a tournament. Why do you make your choice of decks?

And yet, when we look back through this thread, you have been saying how they are not a problem because they are not viable in the category at this time, and showing how the data proves that. Can't have it both ways.

To which I would say, please go back and re-read because I don't think anyone can read what I wrote and honestly come to the position you are trying to fob off as mine.

Quote

Honestly, I handled other things while Teams finished, and did not pay attention to the time remaining just the tables left.

So to support your argument you felt free to throw out an assertion without knowing whether it was true or not and without making any effort to verify it?

When you couple this with jbeers claim that anyone playing 154 decks would only do so to be a troll (despite the fact that similar decks placed highly at Nats in the past), and I hope everyone can understand why I am unimpressed with Chris' "I've talked to a lot of folks" arguments.

jbeers285 · « **Reply #42 on:** August 14, 2014, 09:48:31 AM »

Just to clarify I didn't mean come across as personal in any way. I just ment to communicate what Maly said earlier I just didn't do it as eloquently. If I offended you or anyone with the word troll I'm sorry. In all honesty I haven't played enough teams to know if it's a problem in teams. I do struggle with it more in t1-2p due to the fact that it won't compete to win and realistically only has the ability to knockdown a top player who didn't do anything wrong. This is more along the lines of trolling but perhaps that word is to strong here as well.

News:

Author Topic: Suggested Rule Changes to Teams (Read 12021 times)

Chris

Chris

Warrior_Monk

Warrior_Monk

Warrior_Monk

Warrior_Monk

Warrior_Monk

Chris