Cactus Game Design Message Boards

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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