Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Open Forum => Off-Topic => Topic started by: soul seeker on October 03, 2012, 12:32:24 PM
-
DRD = Dorm Room Discussion: This phrase is used to discuss ideas and topics that really lead nowhere.
Examples of DRDs are Which came first, chicken or egg?
What would the earth be like if Adam & Eve had not eaten the apple?
My DRD in regard to Redemption is this...
1. What do you think Redemption would look like if characters did not have special abilities?
Would the game be more fun? More broken?
Would the game have survived for this long with this type of game mechanic?
In this way, only enhancements, forts, artifacts, etc. could make the hero/EC better.
2. What if heroes were limited to only the "banding" ability if supported in the Bible?
(like famous duos: Priscilla and Aquila, Barnabas and Paul, Jonathan and David, etc.)
3. Would low initiative characters be too powerful?
I'm not trying to change anything, and I don't like seeing the game get criticized. I ponder on this from time to time and was curious if anyone else ever wondered about it. Clearly, heroes with SAs can not be undone so this is just a "Dorm Room Discussion."
-
1. What do you think Redemption would look like if characters did not have special abilities?
Would the game be more fun? More broken?
Would the game have survived for this long with this type of game mechanic?
In this way, only enhancements, forts, artifacts, etc. could make the hero/EC better.
2. What if heroes were limited to only the "banding" ability if supported in the Bible?
(like famous duos: Priscilla and Aquila, Barnabas and Paul, Jonathan and David, etc.)
3. Would low initiative characters be too powerful?
1. That's an interesting question. Personally, I think it'd be more fun, as it'd be much more of a challenge to balance ratios in deck building. I think it's helped expand Redemption though...it'd be really strange to not have characters have abilities.
2. I'd be all for that, so long as there were a few more cards like Gathering of Angels. I don't want to be too restrictive, but HT+Banding would be pretty sweet.
3. Not really. Decrease would be more popular, making the game balanced.
-
1. It'd be rather stupid. Rather than being Joseph or Lot or The Generous widow, they'd be the 2/2 Blue/Green Hero, the 2/2 Red Hero and the 2/2 Gold Hero.
2. Wouldn't make too much difference imo. All of the main banding chains already make biblical sense.
3. Not any more than they are already.
-
I find it interesting that you would find it dumb Pol.
Is not some heroes/EC abilities consistently complained about?
Don't people like Covenant with Death?
I assume 3 things would have developed if heroes did not have SAs (or at least limited to banding):
1. Enhancements (especially rarely used ones) would get used more often.
2. Super Splashes like "The Deck" would be more rare.
3. More thought to balance (ratios like Westy mentioned) and battles would be given.
In essence, I wonder if the evolution of Character SAs is not slowly eliminating the battle phase?
Clearly conjecture, but I gather this from the popular Defenses and Offenses. Their popularity is what got me to pondering this in the first place.
-
The problem would be uniqueness of characters. There are a finite number of possibilities with just numbers and brigades. Special abilities break that wide open. Pol makes a great point.
If no character abilities would be CBN, then that'd be perfect. CwD is a card and can be manipulated like one. A game design lacking character abilities is absolute.
-
No special abilities on heroes/EC's. Been there done that with A/B starters. No thanks. Game is sooo much better with the special abilities. :)
-
If no character abilities would be CBN, then that'd be perfect. CwD is a card and can be manipulated like one. A game design lacking character abilities is absolute.
The same thing is easily said of CWD. It forces everything into an absolute, a simplified game state. Absolutes are always bad game design.
-
If no character abilities would be CBN, then that'd be perfect. CwD is a card and can be manipulated like one. A game design lacking character abilities is absolute.
The same thing is easily said of CWD. It forces everything into an absolute, a simplified game state. Absolutes are always bad game design.
Disagree. I can play DoN on CWD, or any number of enhancements in battle. I can use CBN characters. There are ways around CwD. There are no ways around not having abilities...except print some.
-
If no character abilities would be CBN, then that'd be perfect. CwD is a card and can be manipulated like one. A game design lacking character abilities is absolute.
The same thing is easily said of CWD. It forces everything into an absolute, a simplified game state. Absolutes are always bad game design.
Disagree. I can play DoN on CWD, or any number of enhancements in battle. I can use CBN characters. There are ways around CwD. There are no ways around not having abilities...except print some.
A lot of decks don't include DoN anymore, because of the dom cap, and few decks actually use non-territory class enhancements to deal with CWD, because other cards tend to be more important to the deck. The only cards I see reliably used to stop CWD is captured ark and CBN/P characters, but the characters still don't get rid of CWD, so still greatly hampers most decks. Honestly, I wouldn't have a problem with CWD if they hadn't put the restrict ability on it (which makes it, imo too hard to get rid of) or the CBN on it. As it is, I think its a too powerful and poorly designed card.
-
If no character abilities would be CBN, then that'd be perfect. CwD is a card and can be manipulated like one. A game design lacking character abilities is absolute.
The same thing is easily said of CWD. It forces everything into an absolute, a simplified game state. Absolutes are always bad game design.
Disagree. I can play DoN on CWD, or any number of enhancements in battle. I can use CBN characters. There are ways around CwD. There are no ways around not having abilities...except print some.
A lot of decks don't include DoN anymore, because of the dom cap, and few decks actually use non-territory class enhancements to deal with CWD, because other cards tend to be more important to the deck. The only cards I see reliably used to stop CWD is captured ark and CBN/P characters, but the characters still don't get rid of CWD, so still greatly hampers most decks. Honestly, I wouldn't have a problem with CWD if they hadn't put the restrict ability on it (which makes it, imo too hard to get rid of) or the CBN on it. As it is, I think its a too powerful and poorly designed card.
You've pretty much summed up exactly what I've stated in the ROOT thread about this card and from extensive playtesting. A card that forces the game into a simplified gamestate with little to no practical answers is still treading heavily into an absolute. Far too many unchecked powerful abilities with far too little answers. A very poorly designed card.
-
If they aren't using counter techs than they should get nailed by CwD. It's a powerful card to stop powerful cards. There are plenty of cards that counter CwD. The main problem is so few people use CwD (despite it being "very poorly designed"), so nobody techs against it.
-
There are plenty of cards that counter CwD.
I can count the names of practical answers pre-battle to CWD on two fingers. One isn't even used hardly anymore. A far cry from 'plenty'.
-
Pre-battle is different. CwD is meant to stop almost everything pre-battle. It impairs decks.
-
That's been the discussion here the whole time. Obviously the most impairing function of the card itself is simplifying the gamestate pre-battle. I think everyone here grasps that. What we are saying is it creates an absolute by doing so. Restrict and CBN severely limits your viable choices to tech against the card. Any tech played in battle require initiative and are by no means the most practical and consistent ways to counter CWD.
-
Then we've been discussing two different things. When I said absolute, I meant over the entire game, not a mini-absolute. There are ways around CwD, and this is all provided a player draws it and activates it. There's a sense of control there. There wouldn't be with the absence of printing character abilities.
-
So you're trying to suggest not having character abilities at all is an absolute 'over the entire game', something supposedly in stark contrast to my example with CWD? ::) They're both exactly 'mini-absolutes', as you put it; they both only affect very specific areas of the game. An absolute that is within a specific area is still an absolute, however which way you choose to frame it. An absolute has always been any entity that remains unchecked by anything else. The argument of 'plentiful' counters towards this absolute is a fallacy and has already been busted. There is nothing anymore consistent and practical outside Captured Ark and the slim possibility of a DoN drop that will circumvent what CWD was designed to do, which pushes it considerably into absolute territory.
CBN heroes (specifically the plethora of ones contained in Daniel n' Fwiends) also get around CWD, but is a counter that is contained within only one theme that other archetypes cannot possibly take advantage of. Which makes me severely wonder why no one piloting the deck even used CWD. ::)
-
I agree with Westy. MKC, you're exaggerating a lot to make your point, and while I commend that strategy, I disagree with you so I'm going to call it :)
-
CWD is truly busted. Maybe not to the extent MKC is leading on but it is truly too good.
-
CWD is not and can never be "too good" because it's a reactive card. The only way it becomes "too good" is if players are too reliant on the strategies it disrupts. If you're running a deck that needs it some negatable character abilities and TC cards everywhere (which are the real bullies in the OP arena), then run DoN/Captured Ark/Love of Money/whatever or stop complaining.
-
What exactly has been exaggerated? The facts have been laid out, it is what it is. It matters zero towards the discussion if CWD is a reactive or preemptive card, as it easily fits both roles quite well. What matters is the damage it does to the current gamestate with the checks and balances it receives, which is virtually non-existent. I honestly don't even understand how this is at all any different from the absolute a non-sa Character game design would produce (and the extreme distaste for such a vanilla gamestate)...yet lets also throw in no non-battle enhancements/answers and ice it with CBN for good measure. Yup, I suppose I can see how that wouldn't be an absolute. -_-
I am failing to understand how Love of Money would make any difference towards the problem. The fact it needs to be played in battle shoes it in with the other sub-par but tremendously more useful counters to CWD, such as Live Coal and Abes Kid. The major problem with these types of answers however stems from the fact it repairs the gamestate after the damage has already been done. It does not repair the damage for the current turn (or battle, more specifically) that CWD was designed to do.
-
I'm done arguing with you, but I would like to mention that CwD was a top contender for The Deck. The main problem was it negated the best banders in the deck, namely Simeon and Jacob.
-
That's negligible when you have banders that are completely unaffected by it. Any deck that has a win condition capable of working through CWD would benefit tremendously from running it. So you have dead draws with Jake and Sim. Oak, Seraph, Seraph w/ Live Coal, Abednego, Daniel, Isaiah, and Sam are still online. Is that not enough to make solid rescues with? Especially considering you run through almost every meta defense with CWD as well?
-
CwD is made redundant by the offense. We like playing our cards pre-battle (Pentecost, First Fruits, WWW, Isaiah's Call, Zadok Anoints, etc.). We already negate their evil characters. Samuel's band is a joke. He shouldn't even be in The Deck. Abednego was also not that common in The Deck due to not using any white enhancements other than First Fruits, making it's sole purpose an extra hero. Simply put, a 2 card band isn't enough for rescues. It's risky. Plot is the main opponent.
-
So play your searchers, then turn up CWD. That's another problem with the card...the fact you choose when you want to simplify the gamestate at will. Generate massive advantage, then neg your opponent by locking everything down when you flip it up. Hmm, I wonder what other card did that in recent years before it was sightly nerfed? ::)
-
For What Its Worth: I wasn't trying to encourage a simpler state of the game or make that simpler state "absolute." I just wonder if the strategic element would shift without becoming simpler. You guys make good points, and I found it worthwhile to read and reflect upon.
I can see the benefit of character SAs, but without going through every SA...it just feels like they have a downside too. It seems that having back and forth battles become more prominent would be a good thing. I understand MKC's point and reservation with CwD, but I didn't mind the card because it attempts to bring battles back. The downside is that CBN characters can take advantage of that card.
Maybe it's a waste of my mental energy, but I like to reflect on DRDs from time to time. Occasionally, they may help develop a new concept.
-
...but I didn't mind the card because it attempts to bring battles back.
I can appreciate this aspect of the card as well. Battles these days are practically non-existent...unstoppable super bands and TGT have saturated the meta towards free walk-ins. CWD helps bring back the battle in that regard (although TGT can still walk through and thus abuse it). Iron Pan is a card that can easily mitigate the NPE caused by TGT, but is a very well-balanced card. CWD is a similar card in the respect it simplifies the game state just like Iron Pan, yet it receives no checks. Why was this? That is truly the only thing I think was poorly designed on the card itself, no checks towards a severely powerful absolute coupled with restrict and CBN together. One or the other would have probably been fine, if either of those at all.
-
SS, I definitely agree with you that Character SA's got out of hand. The first one ever was on Prince of Persia who was protected from AotL, and he was the only one in the set. Then when Women came out, the trend mostly continued of nice, simple abilities that distinguished cards from just being "Red 2/2 Female." However, the poison of FbtN was also introduced. Then Warriors came around and it was "FBTN ALL THE THINGS," and the meta was ruined from that point until Priests (with a brief reprieve when HoH was out and DoN wasn't). After that horse was out of the barn, the only way to make other Heroes playable was to creep the power, and that's why we are where we are today.
Part of the nature of the game lends itself to this kind of creep. Since there is no cost in Redemption, there's nothing stopping a card from getting loaded up with whatever. In MTG, they have a formula for their cards. Haste costs 1, a 2/2 costs 2 and flying costs 1, so generally if you had a 2/2 flier with haste it'd cost 4 mana as opposed to a 2/2 which costs 2, limiting the creep because better cards tend to be more expensive. In Redemption we have no such limitations, so there's literally zero reason to use a 7/6 White Hero when you can use a Garden lady instead.
-
Part of the nature of the game lends itself to this kind of creep. Since there is no cost in Redemption, there's nothing stopping a card from getting loaded up with whatever. In MTG, they have a formula for their cards. Haste costs 1, a 2/2 costs 2 and flying costs 1, so generally if you had a 2/2 flier with haste it'd cost 4 mana as opposed to a 2/2 which costs 2, limiting the creep because better cards tend to be more expensive. In Redemption we have no such limitations, so there's literally zero reason to use a 7/6 White Hero when you can use a Garden lady instead.
This^
is exactly why I was confused when I started playing Redemption when it first came out in the mid 90's, and I was getting out of magic.
I was used to paying the costs for things, and thought it was odd there was no cost to things in Redemption, so there was no reason to use "underpowered" cards, where in magic there were ways to make successful, quick "underpowered" aggro decks that cost very little. I don't know how to fix it, although I liked windows of narrow light (gives protection to no special ability characters), but again it's easier just to use a better hero that already has the protection than risk windows getting trashed or at the bottom of your deck.
-
The first one ever was on Prince of Persia who was protected from AotL, and he was the only one in the set.
Just wanted to point out that this isn't true. Delilah would be very offended. ;)
The cost mechanic of Magic that I most recently saw when a Magic player was at Kirk's tournament in September looked really interesting, and a similar system may be interesting as a game variation.
-
It would have to tap into some kind of resource in the game. I'm not exactly sure how one would implement that unless an entirely new card type were created. While the MtG mana/cost system does help keep the game considerably balanced, it has always been highly criticized due to the fact you have to include otherwise useless cards in your deck just to satisfy costs and play cards. Mana drought, or the deprivation of actually drawing into these resources, has also been an issue with the game. In that regard, I have always liked Redemption and Yugioh since it has no such inherent cost associated with playing their cards, but instead relies on game mechanics and costs on the cards themselves to promote balance.
-
I wasn't saying Magic's system is better (it's just different), just pointing out why it was easier for things to get out-of-control in Redemption.
-
Yeah, I wasn't saying either one was better than the other either, just which one I prefer overall. I like the balance an 'everything has a cost' approach MtG does, but I also don't like getting mana screwed either. Miss a mana drop and it puts you behind. Of all the 'resource' driven CCG's I have played, the one that I believe executes it the best is a game called Universal Fighting System. Every Foundation (resource) had a special ability, so they had purposes outside of being simply resources. You also weren't limited to one drop per turn either, so it was possible to make up for slow developments on previous turns. The game also uses the cost/control system as well (sort of reminiscent of the old Decipher Star Wars CCG), where every card has an inherent cost to play it, as well as a control value used to fulfill the costs of other cards as well as generating a value for other card effects.
The most genius aspect of the game is the progressive difficulty (cost) to play cards. You are allowed to take as many actions as you like during a turn (such as playing a Foundation, playing an attack, etc.), but every time you did so the cost of playing that card was 1 higher for each card played before it (if you failed a cost, your turn essentially ended). A brilliant system that plays heavily upon player management skills as well as weighing whether a risk to play a card was truly worth the reward.