Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Open Forum => Off-Topic => Topic started by: christiangamer25 on December 14, 2010, 03:38:59 AM
-
i hereby petition to have max deck size in t1 2p changed to 63 cards with 8 ls no deck needs to ever be bigger then this and people that want to play bigger decks should just go play t2 as its what the type was designed to be and stop ruining t1 for everyone. all in favor please reply im just sick and tired of losing games i should realistically win because of the size of my opponets deck. everyone that knows me personally knows i don't play t2 and i hate it im an avid t12p player and have been for years. i just feel this game is getting to the point where games are being ruined just because its impossible to beat these 100 card beasts that get to duplicate there entire key parts of there deck and not have to worry about losing a card and it effecting there overall strategy at all. not to mention they are a complete joke and are really only played online cause of the lack of time restrictions. i feel there is no way a legitimate deck can ever be bigger then 63 cards and win in a official tourney capacity with timers as they are. I'm making this post to simply see where other peoples opinion are. i'm not trying to rant but maybe i am anyway please please please reply to this with your opinion no smartalec criticisms please this is an issue ive been struggling with for a long time and i finally snapped.
-
FWIW, I have won several real life tournaments with my 70 card Heroless deck, and Kevin Shride took 2nd (or was it 3rd?) at Nationals with a 150 card deck. I know it can be frustrating to face a deck like that, especially when they are so uncommon that it's hard to prepare for them, but it's part of the game.
I personally wouldn't mind seeing a T1 deck limit of 100 (or 105 I guess), but I think that having an option to have at least two copies of various cards in your deck should be allowed for T1.
If more people agree, a more stringent time limit is something that will probably be discussed for ROOT in the near future. It won't ever be the same as a real life tournament because of the natural lag that RTS provides, but it might be shortened to 75 or 90 minutes.
-
Now, Now, Kevin played that 150 card deck for one game at that Nationals. Don't be misrepresenting what it did, It was a pure counter-Tim Maly deck.
-
Third place at Nationals was a 70 carder.
-
There's a simple answer to beating bigger decks: get your SoG/NJ faster.
*cue endless debate*
-
i think the best way to beat a 150 card deck is to use one.
-
I believe they're not used as much because it is actually a disadvantage to the user of the big deck. I can see where 63 and 70 card decks can be an advantage, but if you look at what most top players choose to use, it's in the 50-56 card range. T1 is a race to 3 and when you use a ton more cards it's just hurting you. I believe most 100-150 card decks could actually be better without the duplicates. Rarely do I see a 100+ T1 deck and rarely does it win in my opinion. If you're trying to do abom, you might as well use a super big deck. Other than that, I really don't see the advantage to it. If your deck is tailored to beat a speedy 50-56 card deck, there's really no difference when you come up against a 100+ carder.
-
The problem with too-big decks in my opinion is they're total spoilers. I guarantee you nobody will ever win a major T1 tournament using a 100+ card deck every game. They time out and lose at least once because of their bulk, making it impossible to actually win a tournament, even if your opponents never get to five, making it super-frustrating for the player with a clearly-better deck who got 2 points instead of 3 just because someone was being cute with their deck choice.
But it goes from frustrating to maddening when it's on RTS, and especially ROOT. 100+ card decks are worse than 50-63 card decks. There's basically no denying that. But in ROOT, you're using RTS and playing with a MUCH longer time limit, somewhat mitigating the natural deterrent to playing an awful, bloated deck. And while fat decks will lose 90% of the time, it's extremely frustrating when you're in that 10% for a tournament game and loose because of sheer luck (150 cards in a lot of room for LS's to get lost in).
T1 was not designed for huge decks. That's what T2 is for. I'd be all for lowering the limit to 105 cards for T1, and I'd be for lowering the limit to 98 cards in a ROOT game.
-
I think I will start a petition to ban the playing of Mayhem in the opening round. I've lost several games mostly due to this unfortunate occurrence of sheer luck...
And while fat decks will lose 90% of the time,
My "fat" deck has lost one game, had another game where I lost 4-2 in mutual lockout and has won about 6 or so games. Some poor, stubborn player must be doing REALLY poorly with his...
-
I think I will start a petition to ban the playing of Mayhem in the opening round. I've lost several games mostly due to this unfortunate occurrence of sheer luck...
I second this and also make it a rule that it is illegal to activate rain becomes dust first round after I have played First Fruits. I could see maybe cutting down T1 decks to 105, especially in ROOT. I haven't run into any lately, but have played them in the past and they can be very annoying/boring.
-
105 doesn't accomplish the goal of killing dupes
-
If you can't out speed and outplay a deck with 100-150 cards you or your deck is to blame. Most likely the latter.
-
once again says somebody who has never suffered the pain of abom WHICH NEEDS BANNED
-
I think I will start a petition to ban the playing of Mayhem in the opening round. I've lost several games mostly due to this unfortunate occurrence of sheer luck...
That's different and you know why. It's luck based on drawing, not deckbuilding. Good decks build to minimize the reliance on luck, not depend on it.
If you can't out speed and outplay a deck with 100-150 cards you or your deck is to blame. Most likely the latter.
That's the thing, most of the time it's an easy win assuming your opponent plays quickly and just takes the loss instead of legally stalling. But just because of the nature of a fat deck, every once in a while they'll draw no Lost Souls and be able to win a war of attrition against a normal defense.
-
Abom isn't that good. It has been a blast in teams, though ;).
-
That's different and you know why. It's luck based on drawing, not deckbuilding.
Every once in awhile a big deck has a great draw in terms of the number of Lost Souls drawn early in the game.
Every once in awhile any type of deck draws Mayhem opening hand.
How is that different?
-
I don't know enough about statistics to know why it's different, but I know enough to know that it is.
-
The odds of drawing a Mayhem in the Openng hand in a standard 50-63 card deck are actually higher than the odds of soul burying in a 150 card deck.
-
I like the 105 card idea to allow duplicates for those that want them. If it is just lost souls being buried that is the problem, then I thought that "speed" decks had many ways around this. Hur, Mayhem, Harvest Time, Woman at the Well, Hopper, Am Slave, etc. As has been stated, is it really that hard to get 3 lost souls against a 150 card deck because of lost soul drought, or is it really that they have a nigh unstoppable defense?
Don't get me wrong - I'll never make a T1 deck over 105 cards (my largest so far has been 70), but it seems to me that a 50-56 carder "should" be able to beat out a 150 card deck. Then again, I don't play online.
-
Buried souls can happen in any game regardless of type or size. The last time I played Guardian online, he literally drew one soul the entire game, and all but one of the cards at the end of his deck were his entire complement of Lost Souls. And this was in a game where he had to shuffle a couple times. That just happens.
Decks like these don't seem that hard to plan around; just toss in a Hopper and a Harvest Time if drought is a concern. Those plus SoG/NJ give you at least partial control of 80% of your own Redeemed Soul count.
-
the soul drought aint as big as an issue as duplicates oh look i get rid of something blam its back and ive exhausted the resources getting rid of it the first time its just plain cheap to have duplicates in t1 and thats my opinion period. :police:
-
It's a strategy that has its own advantages (duplicate key cards) and disadvantages (Drawing).
-
disadvantage (drawing) thats a joke got freaking everything last night and still got creamed
-
I've used 100+ decks as you know, and they can have problems with draws.
If you feel they're so overpowered, try one out yourself and you'll see what I mean.
-
the soul drought aint as big as an issue as duplicates oh look i get rid of something blam its back and ive exhausted the resources getting rid of it the first time its just plain cheap to have duplicates in t1 and thats my opinion period.
Yes, but they have the same hand limit as you per turn, and the problem with having uniques in your deck is that you can't put them both down to reduce your hand size. A player might be able to put down a TSA right behind the one you Martyr, or he might be forced to discard his other one without playing it at all, because he has a handful of better cards.
Or they might get buried and he won't see either one before you are long gone with five.
-
the soul drought aint as big as an issue as duplicates oh look i get rid of something blam its back and ive exhausted the resources getting rid of it the first time its just plain cheap to have duplicates in t1 and thats my opinion period.
Yes, but they have the same hand limit as you per turn, and the problem with having uniques in your deck is that you can't put them both down to reduce your hand size. A player might be able to put down a TSA right behind the one you Martyr, or he might be forced to discard his other one without playing it at all, because he has a handful of better cards.
This is why 100+ deckbuilding has to be more than just a 2x'd 50 carder. You have to take into account the unique rule, and maximize the effectiveness of generics.
-
The odds of drawing a Mayhem in the Openng hand in a standard 50-63 card deck are actually higher than the odds of soul burying in a 150 card deck.
Odds of drawing Mayhem opening hand, 56 card deck with 7 Lost Souls:
1/49+1/48+1/47+1/46+1/45+1/44+1/43+1/42=17.6%
Odds of drawing 0 Lost Souls opening hand, 56 card deck with 7 Lost Souls:
49/56*48/55*47/54*46/53*45/52*44/51*43/50*42/49=31.7%
Odds of drawing 0 Lost Souls opening hand, 105 card deck with 14 Lost Souls:
91/105*90/104*89/103*88/102*87/101*86/100*85/99*84/98=30.5%
Odds of drawing 0 Lost Souls opening hand, 154 card deck with 21 Lost Souls:
133/154*132/153*131/152*130/151*129/150*128/149*127/148*126/147=30.0%
Oh noes...those darn 56 card decks are burying Lost Souls...what are we going to do? ???
-
no ls on turn 1 is not the same as all lost souls on the bottom.
-
Run RTS 100 times and Mayhem will be in your hand over 17.6% I would think. It seems Mayhem and Emp Nero are favorites of RTS on the first draw.
-
no ls on turn 1 is not the same as all lost souls on the bottom.
Lambo's point is more along the lines of what I was saying. It is more likely to have a first turn Mayhem then say, 5-10 turns of soul drought from a 150, which would be half the deck of a 50-63.
-
A slight correction: every Lost Soul drawn is replaced, so consider those transparent in your deck since you draw right through them anyway.
The correct formula for Mayhem is:
(1/43)+(1/42)+(1/41)+(1/40)+(1/39)+(1/38)+(1/37)+(1/36) = 20.3%
-
The odds of drawing a Mayhem in the Openng hand in a standard 50-63 card deck are actually higher than the odds of soul burying in a 150 card deck.
Odds of drawing Mayhem opening hand, 56 card deck with 7 Lost Souls:
1/49+1/48+1/47+1/46+1/45+1/44+1/43+1/42=17.6%
Odds of drawing 0 Lost Souls opening hand, 105 card deck with 14 Lost Souls:
91/105*90/104*89/103*88/102*87/101*86/100*85/99*84/98=30.5%
Yes, and if you have Mayhem, Am Slave, Hopper, Hur, Woman at the Well, and Harvest Time in your 56 card deck, what are the odds that you will draw one of these 6 ways that helps you get a lost soul (and maybe more cards I can't think of right now)? I'm just saying that with the awesome card set we have now, if a player loses just because of lost souls drought, it might be that they didn't add the right cards to decrease this problem, in my opinion.
-
A slight correction: every Lost Soul drawn is replaced, so consider those transparent in your deck since you draw right through them anyway.
The correct formula for Mayhem is:
(1/43)+(1/42)+(1/41)+(1/40)+(1/39)+(1/38)+(1/37)+(1/36) = 20.3%
For a 50 card deck yes, but I specified 56.
-
if a player loses just because of lost souls drought, it might be that they didn't add the right cards to decrease this problem, in my opinion.
I lost a T2 game at a tournament recently due to Lost Soul drought. My opponent drew 3 LS in the first 12-14 rounds (can't recall exactly how many). One of these was buried--the other 2 I rescued.
Meanwhile, I drew about half my Lost Souls in the same time frame and while I stalled a couple turns, I was drawing mostly offense, which was for the most part useless. It's get better too because my opponent drew almost zero defense, (and what little he did draw, I easily overcame) AND I was using a deck that can typically hide Lost Souls (Susanna for offense/Divination and Death of Unrighteous on defense). :P
Bottom line is that droughts happen with all sizes of decks, not just the biggies.
-
ok so he was correct to begin with, my apologies.
But arguing that Mayhem is a more likely draw just argues against the "problem" of Lost Soul burying. The more turns you go, the lower the odds.
The odds of no Lost Souls in 2 turns is 19%.
In 3 turns, 11.6%.
In 4 turns, 7%.
So not only is it unlikely for Lost Souls to be buried on the bottom of a 105-card deck 10% of the time, it's not even likely to go four turns without seeing them (out of the 29 it takes to draw through the deck) 10% of the time. By turn eight you're down to less than 1%.
-
I agree that size does not necessarily mitigate drought. But deck size DOES affect how "deep" those souls could be. For example, if my opponent uses a 50 card deck, and happened to get all 7 lost souls on the bottom, then after his opening hand of 8 he has 42 cards left. This is 14 turns, barring any shuffles and any extra card draws by him. I agree that the game could be over by 14 turns anyway (hence my recommendation to include most/all of the cards I mentioned to bring those cards out).
But if he has a 105 card deck with 14 lost souls, and by some horrible act of fate those 14 lost souls are on the bottom, After the opening hand of 8 cards they have 97 cards left, meaning it will be 33 turns before you see those lost souls!
Now this is an extreme hypothetical, but I have personally always felt that the random lost soul draw mechanic was Redemption's weakest element. But they make this much better by making cards to deal with it.
-
I lost a T1 game because of lost soul drought with Ammy Slave and Hopper in my deck. It was against a 50-56. Just plain bad luck.
I ran a 105 deck last tournament and always had plenty of souls to rescue. Although my defense managed to stay hidden during one game...and it was over 50% of my deck.
-
but I have personally always felt that the random lost soul draw mechanic was Redemption's weakest element.
I actually agree with this also--it's one of the major reasons I switched to playing Type 2 as my preferred category as an early Lost Soul drought is easier to overcome in Type 2.
Sometimes there's games where you cannot possibly win because of the way the cards fall, and you're left hoping your opponent makes a mistake that lets you back in the game.
-
I ran a 105 deck last tournament and always had plenty of souls to rescue. Although my defense managed to stay hidden during one game...and it was over 50% of my deck.
"HERP DERP DURR I'M GOING TO DESTRUCTION WASH BASIN WHEN I KNOW MY OPPONENT HAS THREE NAILS HERPPPPPPP".
I wouldn't call that hidden ;O
-
I agree that size does not necessarily mitigate drought. But deck size DOES affect how "deep" those souls could be. For example, if my opponent uses a 50 card deck, and happened to get all 7 lost souls on the bottom, then after his opening hand of 8 he has 42 cards left. This is 14 turns, barring any shuffles and any extra card draws by him. I agree that the game could be over by 14 turns anyway (hence my recommendation to include most/all of the cards I mentioned to bring those cards out).
But if he has a 105 card deck with 14 lost souls, and by some horrible act of fate those 14 lost souls are on the bottom, After the opening hand of 8 cards they have 97 cards left, meaning it will be 33 turns before you see those lost souls!
For starters, remember that Lost Souls are drawn through, so you only have 12 turns left on a 50-card deck, not 14. But that also means your 33-turn deck is actually a 29-turn deck. And remember that in the early going (first four turns) the odds favor the smaller deck slightly. But in terms of bigger decks holding out longer, the difference in Lost Souls means you're only giving back one turn for every six or seven turns the game lasts. And while it's statistically possible to deck out without him drawing a single Lost Soul, you're talking 25,000 to 1 odds.
Not to discount the "weaker" random aspect of the Lost Soul draw, but that's the nature of the beast with this particular game. It's not a pure strategy battle royale like other card games: the random element of LS draw and Dominant play disrupts normal statistics as a way to allow newer or less-experienced players a bit more of a chance against the guys who have five copies of every gold card.
Some people might argue that this chaotic aspect detracts from the quality of the game, but when fun and fellowship are given as priorities, that's the tradeoff you make to have a game more fun and less cutthroat. That's like saying Apples to Apples is a lesser-quality game because a judge can rule that Texas is a better fit for the word "big" than The Moon, even though statistically, the moon is bigger than Texas.
-
Not to discount the "weaker" random aspect of the Lost Soul draw, but that's the nature of the beast with this particular game. It's not a pure strategy battle royale like other card games: the random element of LS draw and Dominant play disrupts normal statistics as a way to allow newer or less-experienced players a bit more of a chance against the guys who have five copies of every gold card.
Some people might argue that this chaotic aspect detracts from the quality of the game, but when fun and fellowship are given as priorities, that's the tradeoff you make to have a game more fun and less cutthroat. That's like saying Apples to Apples is a lesser-quality game because a judge can rule that Texas is a better fit for the word "big" than The Moon, even though statistically, the moon is bigger than Texas.
+1 Well put, Schaef.
-
Good points on all counts, and thanks for correcting the math.
Please don't misunderstand my comments as "dissing" the game. You are correct that more even odds is what the designers had in mind and for good reason. I was only saying that there are few game moments more frustrating than having a lot of great cards in hand and nothing to do with them, or worse have to discard some because your opponent either won't draw any lost souls, and/or YOU are also not drawing lost souls and thus not blocking as often as your hand would like for you to :)
-
I'm not sure anyone thought of it as a "diss"; many people on both sides of the issue agreed with your general notion. It just is what it is, and some people will like it, and some won't. In terms of pure strategy, "weaker" is the best description.
There's a certain irony to having this as my CCG of choice because I generally am not a big fan of chaotic elements. I like games with little-to-no luck, or with ways to mitigate the luck factor (which I guess you could argue Redemption has some of that). So I tend to stay away from dice games or games with random draw-a-card-that-totally-screws-you elements. Games I do like include To Court the King, which is dicey-randomy like Yahtzee but what's awesome is that you use your die results to "buy" cards that give you special bonuses: adding more dice, changing die results, etc. Another one that interested me is Battleball (cyborg football in the future) because the different players have different-sided dice (d6-d20), and the high roll gives more movement on the field but the low number wins on attempts to tackle. So there's a built-in balancing element to the die chances because some players can travel far but are likely to get hammered, while others don't move much at all but will take you down hard.
The weirdest one to me is Liar's Dice (or Pirate Dice if you saw the movie), because I don't like bluffing games, and dice games don't like me. And yet, I ALWAYS want to play this if someone offers.
-
yeah ill agree good point schaeff i just spend so much time absorbed in tweaking and trying to master my decks that when i run into such nonsense i end up taking it as a personal asasault on my intelligence
-
I wouldn't worry too much about that. It's a card game, so chance will always be a factor, and a little bit more in this game. Good deck-building relies on coming up with ways to minimize the impact that chance has on your game, but then you have to make sure you have ways to score points also, or you'll have the least random deck ever to score no points. So you just try to find the best balance you can, and accept that sometimes, chance will bite you anyway.
But then, I'm a lot more laid back about my gaming; I seldom place high in tournaments and I don't worry a lot about my record. As long as I'm winning a fair amount of the time, and competitive in the games that I lose, and not just getting run out of the building every time, then I'm having a fun time. So yeah, I'll probably tell you hey, you lose some of the time, big whoop. Jonathan might tell you not to listen to me, and go straight for the throat. ;)
-
once again says somebody who has never suffered the pain of abom WHICH NEEDS BANNED
cough Nathan, swords to plowshares, evil discard LS, Hezekiah, faith as a mustard seed, every negate and discard enhancement ever cough
Sorry I had something in my throat ::)
Just because you lost one game to a big deck doesn't mean they're broken
-
every negate and discard enhancement ever cough
Those won't work, most work on the last card in battle.
-
I prefer I am Grace, since it can go in any deck and is less likely to get sniped. Nathan will be CM'd before Abom is played, depending on when he's drawn.
-
I am Grace is definitely good. I put it in nearly every T2 deck I build for things like Abom, IoJ, and the annoying Horsies... :P
-
That's like saying Apples to Apples is a lesser-quality game because a judge can rule that Texas is a better fit for the word "big" than The Moon, even though statistically, the moon is bigger than Texas.
That is sooooo frustrating when people pick cards like that in that game!!!
-
I ran a 105 deck last tournament and always had plenty of souls to rescue. Although my defense managed to stay hidden during one game...and it was over 50% of my deck.
"HERP DERP DURR I'M GOING TO DESTRUCTION WASH BASIN WHEN I KNOW MY OPPONENT HAS THREE NAILS HERPPPPPPP".
I wouldn't call that hidden ;O
I was referring to the game with Scott. He won 5-0 in less than five minutes. We played a rematch and I won 5-2.
-
That is sooooo frustrating when people pick cards like that in that game!!!
But that's the POINT of the game. The judge decides!
Sometimes to make sure people keep it loose, I'll just take the red cards I read, shuffle them upside down, flip one over, and that's the winner.
-
Yeah, but I reserve the right to be annoyed when the judge chooses "Grandma's Apple Pie" over Hitler for Cruel.
-
If you tasted grandma's apple pie, you would agree with me. This is why I took it upon myself to start baking them. And if I may be so bold, I make a butt-kicking apple pie.
-
If you tasted grandma's apple pie, you would agree with me. This is why I took it upon myself to start baking them. And if I may be so bold, I make a butt-kicking apple pie.
Bring some to Nats, and then we'll see.
-
Run RTS 100 times and Mayhem will be in your hand over 17.6% I would think. It seems Mayhem and Emp Nero are favorites of RTS on the first draw.
I was bored and fired up RTS and counted what happened at the first d8, not doing any draws for the LS's that were in the d8.
15/100 Mayhem
14/100 emp nero
I was wrong. I thought those both were some kinda weird favorite picks of RTS on first draw. Looks about normal to me.
-
If you tasted grandma's apple pie, you would agree with me. This is why I took it upon myself to start baking them. And if I may be so bold, I make a butt-kicking apple pie.
Bring some to Nats, and then we'll see.
Done, and done.
-
Run RTS 100 times and Mayhem will be in your hand over 17.6% I would think. It seems Mayhem and Emp Nero are favorites of RTS on the first draw.
I was bored and fired up RTS and counted what happened at the first d8, not doing any draws for the LS's that were in the d8.
15/100 Mayhem
14/100 emp nero
I was wrong. I thought those both were some kinda weird favorite picks of RTS on first draw. Looks about normal to me.
you should have drawn off the lost souls, since those technically dont count towards the percentage. if you did, the percentage would have more than likely been closer to what was stated previous in this thread.
-
2 Words for you CG25...
lolwut
-
To answer the "just use a bunch of soul-searching cards" crowd, I thought we wanted decks more dissimilar? And hated Domiants? Now everyone's supposed to include TAS (and hope a fat deck attacks for that matter, doesn't happen very early very often), WatW, SWJ, HT, and Hopper in every single deck?
My main beef isn't really the odds so much as abusing RTS in ROOT to do things you would never attempt in a real tournament.
-
No. You don't have to. It was only stated that this is not a problem with no remedy. Just like you don't have to account for FBTN in your decks but you don't really have any room to complain if you take that chance, and they come at you with one and beat you. I seriously doubt any one deck can account for all possible strategies it might face, so deciding which ones you will and will not take your chances against, is what fosters differences in deck compositions.
If you hate Dominants, just don't play them. I've built more than my share of Dom-less and Dom-lite decks in the past. Basically any argument for what "we" want is an argument for greater homogeneity in decks, so feel free to include or exclude whatever "you" want regardless of what you might think "we" want.
-
My main beef isn't really the odds so much as abusing RTS in ROOT to do things you would never attempt in a real tournament.
That's really my only beef with large decks and the reason I pushed so hard to get a time limit instituted for ROOT. Even though I could never get one of my peers to agree to a realistic time limit it was a step in the right direction. Hopefully some day the time limit will be lowered and those ridiculous decks will be eliminated from competitive online play. Even though I didn't lose to large decks very often they still made the games extremely un-fun. I know that's been a factor in driving a number of people away from ROOT over the course of it's existence. When I played ROOT I wanted to test my decks against things I might face in real life. Not against some turtle that should time out every round before it ever got set up.
-
My main beef isn't really the odds so much as abusing RTS in ROOT to do things you would never attempt in a real tournament.
I believe Josh Hey took 2nd place at 2003 Nationals with a 105 card deck. He lost his opening match 6-0 to a small site deck and then went on to win his next 9 games, even beating the eventual champion but taking 2nd on differential.
Obviously the game has changed considerably since then, but I do have a 100+ deck that if I can figure out what to use in it to make it fast enough, I would try it in a tournament.
Edit* Josh took 3rd place, he beat the eventual champ (Kyle H) in round 9, but lost to 2nd place finisher Justin Cannaday in the 10th round.
-
After reading all the pages, I now want to make a 100+ abom deck (and eat some apple pie :p)
-
Guardian, I'm sure I don't have to explain why something that happened in 2003 has absolutely no bearing on this discussion.
You're also very much the exception. I still have less fun playing your big decks than normal decks, but you at least try to make the big decks run as fast as normal decks. You're the exception, not the rule. The rest of the big decks have a mentality of "trollololol I have two hours and a shuffling program gonna use a boring-to-play deck and not attack for 15 turns lol u mad?"
-
And again to clarify, (since I am the one who said to include more lost soul generators if it bothers you a lot), I also said that I would be in favor of a 105 card limit for Type 1. It still allows duplicates, but also keeps the size reasonable. But like I said, I don't play online so I have not experienced the frustration you mention. I once faced a 150 card deck in real life, but my 56 card deck had 5-6 cards in it to get more lost souls in play.
-
I also said that I would be in favor of a 105 card limit for Type 1.
Which I don't like either. 150 is very effective in TEAMS.
-
I've built more than my share of Dom-less and Dom-lite decks in the past.
...and never won a big tournament with any of them. Pol is right that all top decks will continue to have many card slots taken up by dominants until there becomes a card that could even possibly balance that kind of power. Something like:
"If you have not played any dominants this game, then discard this artifact to remove all artifacts from all players decks, hands, and discard piles."
I pushed so hard to get a time limit instituted for ROOT. Even though I could never get one of my peers to agree to a realistic time limit
Nor could you get a majority of the players who voted in 2 separate polls to agree to what you consider a realistic time limit. People in ROOT in the past enjoyed the ability to get to try out decks that they wouldn't normally get to use in a live tournament setting. And some of them were able to develop big defensive decks over time to the point that they actually COULD play them in live tournaments (and win at State or Regional levels).
I understand that you and Pol have a different style of play, and don't personally enjoy longer games, but some players enjoy the intensity of an extended game where a single misplay could cost you the game, but that if you play just right, you can stop even the most dominating speed offense, and end up coming back for the win late in the game. I wouldn't change the rules of the game to make it impossible to play a speed deck, so why would anyone change the rules to make it impossible to play a defense-heavy deck?
-
I've built more than my share of Dom-less and Dom-lite decks in the past.
...and never won a big tournament with any of them. Pol is right that all top decks will continue to have many card slots taken up by dominants until there becomes a card that could even possibly balance that kind of power.
Yes, but there is a reason for that which I believe was stated earlier in this thread. People don't win big tournaments with dom-less decks, and people don't win big tournaments with giant decks that exist for no other reason than to exploit the benefits of online play. So there's no reason to believe that soul-searching cards are REQUIRED staples in EVERY deck in order to account for this small percentage of decks that show up in a tournament engaged by a small percentage of players.
I wouldn't change the rules of the game to make it impossible to play a speed deck, so why would anyone change the rules to make it impossible to play a defense-heavy deck?
EXACTLY. And frankly, between the two, I consider the speed deck the greater detriment to the game, which when you put it that way, only diminishes my sympathy more for people frustrated by slow decks.
-
Nor could you get a majority of the players who voted in 2 separate polls to agree to what you consider a realistic time limit.
The only survey that matters is the one that involved actual ROOT players. You tallied the results and skewed them towards your bias. Even still we had to go with the longer time limit instead of the one that got the most votes just to get you to agree. But don't take my word for it, see the results for yourself here (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=19999.0).
People in ROOT in the past enjoyed the ability to get to try out decks that they wouldn't normally get to use in a live tournament setting. And some of them were able to develop big defensive decks over time to the point that they actually COULD play them in live tournaments (and win at State or Regional levels).
I challenge you to provide examples of State or Regional winning "turtles" that evolved from ROOT. I doubt you can come up with even one.
I understand that you and Pol have a different style of play, and don't personally enjoy longer games, but some players enjoy the intensity of an extended game where a single misplay could cost you the game...
I do enjoy that type of game occasionally, provided both players are actually participating in the long game. Nobody enjoys sitting around waiting two hours for their opponent to set up and finally make their move. Those type of decks are a detriment to ROOT and one of the reasons it remains small.
I wouldn't change the rules of the game to make it impossible to play a speed deck, so why would anyone change the rules to make it impossible to play a defense-heavy deck?
Are we talking about the rules of the game now or the rules of ROOT? The only place the defense heavy decks exist in this fashion is online. They fail to be top tier in a live, timed tournament setting so they are seldom played and even less often successful.
-
I know the conversation has evolved to ROOT time limits, but back to the original premise of this thread, I love 154 card decks. I especially love putting three Haman's Plots in decks like that. With the disciples theme and their fishing boat along with my fast drawing Philistines or Babylonians with a splash of brown of course, it is all I can do to contain myself. The irony, because of all of the talk of getting your dominants first, is that in a deck that size I tend to not play with dominants at all. I figure, "What's the point!"
-
The only survey that matters is the one that involved actual ROOT players. You tallied the results and skewed them towards your bias. Even still we had to go with the longer time limit instead of the one that got the most votes just to get you to agree.
Actually the only times that got more than a vote or two were 1.5 hours (7 votes), 2 hours (6 votes), and infinite time (6 votes). So we went with the middle of the 3 most popular options. There was no skewing or bias, you just didn't like the outcome. But don't take my word for it, see the results for yourself here (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=19999.msg318903#msg318903).
I challenge you to provide examples of State or Regional winning "turtles" that evolved from ROOT. I doubt you can come up with even one.
Actually I came in 1st place at an OH State and at a KY State with my Zeb deck that I developed using ROOT. I also came in 2nd at an EC Regional with that deck. John Early (RDT) also had significant success up in MN, with his Zeb deck that he developed in ROOT.
I wouldn't change the rules of the game to make it impossible to play a speed deck, so why would anyone change the rules to make it impossible to play a defense-heavy deck?
Are we talking about the rules of the game now or the rules of ROOT?
I'm talking about both. I wouldn't want the rules to change to eliminate big decks (like the original topic of this thread). Nor would I like the rules of ROOT to change to make it impossible for people to play defensive heavy decks (like you are encouraging).
-
The only survey that matters is the one that involved actual ROOT players. You tallied the results and skewed them towards your bias. Even still we had to go with the longer time limit instead of the one that got the most votes just to get you to agree.
Actually the only times that got more than a vote or two were 1.5 hours (7 votes), 2 hours (6 votes), and infinite time (6 votes). So we went with the middle of the 3 most popular options. There was no skewing or bias, you just didn't like the outcome. But don't take my word for it, see the results for yourself here (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=19999.msg318903#msg318903).
I thought the person with the most votes was supposed to win elections?
I challenge you to provide examples of State or Regional winning "turtles" that evolved from ROOT. I doubt you can come up with even one.
Actually I came in 1st place at an OH State and at a KY State with my Zeb deck that I developed using ROOT. I also came in 2nd at an EC Regional with that deck. John Early (RDT) also had significant success up in MN, with his Zeb deck that he developed in ROOT.
I got second at NE regionals with a turtle I did not develop on Root. The existance of both items does not necessarily mean that one of them, turtle success will always lead to another. Also, if I do recall, Earley won more often with his TGT, not his Zeb.
I wouldn't change the rules of the game to make it impossible to play a speed deck, so why would anyone change the rules to make it impossible to play a defense-heavy deck?
Are we talking about the rules of the game now or the rules of ROOT?
I'm talking about both. I wouldn't want the rules to change to eliminate big decks (like the original topic of this thread). Nor would I like the rules of ROOT to change to make it impossible for people to play defensive heavy decks (like you are encouraging).
I don't want to eliminate big deck, I simply want to play in a realistic online tournament where I don't have to wade through the 150 card decks that will never be played in an real tournament with any success. If I lose and play a big deck while towards the bottom of the standings, so be it, because that's where they typically are found, but it is frustrating to have the tournament won by decks that, if played in real life, would be low tier. The goal of the tournament is to make people better at Redemption. I think that facing realistic scenarios would improve people more than playing mammoths that don't hit the real tournament scene.
-
Also, if I do recall, Earley won more often with his TGT, not his Zeb.
^This. Over the two years that I played my Zeb deck it won locals and districts, and tied for third at a regional. I didn't play it in high level tournaments in the '09-'10 season. Additionally, my Zeb deck isn't a 105 card deck, in fact it's not even a 63 card deck, some versions of it weren't even 56. I very, very rarely timed out with it, both in real life settings, and watching the clock to see if I could do it online. That's simply not true of 105+ decks.
-
I thought the person with the most votes was supposed to win elections?
Al Gore says hello.
-
Wall of Text Alert: If you would tl;dr, just read the red text at the bottom.
Furthermore, this discussion is not about whether or not the rules should be changed to disallow defense-heavy decks. Anyone who's followed my Redemption career even a little would know I favor defense-heavy decks. I've been playing defense-heavy since Warriors, and I've never used a 100+ card deck seriously. I have one to use when other people want to test their 100+ card decks and say so before the game, but I don't use it in ROOT and would never use it at a tournament.
Why do decks have to be 100+ cards to be defense-heavy? Because it's easier to write a good 10-minute speech than a good 2-minute speech. Even still, that's beside the point. The point here is that fat decks don't win big tournaments, with the exception of some fluke outliers. There is also another thread asking why more people don't play ROOT. I've never had the misfortune of getting gypped by a 100+ card deck in a tournament game, but if I had, it may seriously cause me to quit. It's one thing to talk about "styles" and "preferences," but when it comes down to it, making ROOT drastically different from a real tournament in order to facilitate your style is hurting it.
Few people want to play in an online tournament knowing they may have to waste 2+ hours of their lives sitting there across the table from 100+ cards, not being attacked and potentially not able to attack for 10+ turns. To make matters worse, many people with huge decks aren't the fastest of players, so the problem is further exacerbated when each turn the opponent does nothing on takes minutes.
-
Pol wins the thread.
-
making ROOT drastically different from a real tournament in order to facilitate your style is hurting it.
If this is directed at me, then I don't think it's accurate. ROOT is not "drastically" different from a real tournament. The rules for gameplay are the same. You get matched up with an opponent using a swiss system. There are at least 4 rounds in a tournament. There are a LOT of similarities really. Sure there are differences, but that is part of what makes ROOT unique, and personally I think that's cool. But those differences are there mainly because it's online, and works around people's schedules NOT to fit any one person's style (especially mine, since I haven't even played in a couple months).
To make matters worse, many people with huge decks aren't the fastest of players
Again if that's directed at me, I haven't played in a couple months, so that shouldn't be keeping anyone away :)
-
I think what he is saying is that the format and extensive time limit allows people to build and use decks that they would not dream of playing in a real tournament because they have a much longer time limit to exploit. Therefore, the "meta" game in ROOT is drastically different from how decks are built and used in face-to-face tournaments.
-
Third place at Nationals was a 70 carder.
Amen brother. If there was a limit to deck sizes in type 1 then I would argue for 100-105 and I can see that happening. I also completely agree, even though I do not play on ROOT, with players playing with large decks online due to no time limit because their time is not as important as their opponent's. I do not play ROOT because I am a full time student/worker and simply do not have time for 1-2 hour long games, plus I am a type 2 player and that can take just as long or longer sometimes. So I would argue for 105 max decks in type 1, 2 of split brigade cards, not multicolor, in type 2, 3 of a SA site, and time limits on ROOT. BUT, if a person makes a competitive, or just for fun larger deck ( as in over 100 cards) then by all means go for it, I have beaten large decks, UTHminister at nationals can vouch, and it was not very long. It's just ratios and playstyle. At a tournament a player makes his deck and plays it, no matter the size. But for online play I would say their should definitely be a time/deck restraint.
-
I'll jump back in this discussion as well.
I'll agree that playing a person who does absolutely nothing until the end, and is slow in the process of doing that is quite annoying. I'm guilty of it myself a few years back. However, I've been trying to make 105 carders work quickly as well. I'm trying to avoid playing turtle with 100+, and it can work if done right.
I love playing heavy defense, I'm sure most of you know this. However, why is it that defense heavy players have been around for a while, but never got that much support from cactus? People will continue to play heavy defense, so why not make some cards to allow defense heavy to work within time limits? I thought we want variation and unique decks?
The current time issues pretty much force people to just play offense heavy decks as always, and as seen in this thread, with a LOT of the same cards as other decks.
Here is the main issue I see with 100 carders that FORCE them to be turtles:
A serious lack of GOOD generic heroes. If there were as many worthwhile generics on offense as there were on defense, I'd be playing fully balanced 105 carders. Unfortunately there are not, so you're stuck being forced into turtles, weak generic offenses, or Job offenses which are the only viable one I see at the moment.
Cactus, can we get some more generic heroes that are worth using? Most generics are angels, and they are old cards so their abilities are rather useless now.
-
the "meta" game in ROOT is drastically different from how decks are built and used in face-to-face tournaments.
In that case we don't disagree. The "meta" game in ROOT is drastically different from face-to-face tournaments. This is partly because there is a greater amount of defense played there. But it is mainly due to the level of difficulty of opponents.
When I'm at a face-to-face tournament, there are usually only a couple people there who I genuinely have concern that I will lose to. When I play in ROOT, it seems like I could easily lose to half the people playing.
-
The problem with too-big decks in my opinion is they're total spoilers. I guarantee you nobody will ever win a major T1 tournament using a 100+ card deck every game. They time out and lose at least once because of their bulk, making it impossible to actually win a tournament, even if your opponents never get to five, making it super-frustrating for the player with a clearly-better deck who got 2 points instead of 3 just because someone was being cute with their deck choice.
But it goes from frustrating to maddening when it's on RTS, and especially ROOT. 100+ card decks are worse than 50-63 card decks. There's basically no denying that. But in ROOT, you're using RTS and playing with a MUCH longer time limit, somewhat mitigating the natural deterrent to playing an awful, bloated deck. And while fat decks will lose 90% of the time, it's extremely frustrating when you're in that 10% for a tournament game and loose because of sheer luck (150 cards in a lot of room for LS's to get lost in).
T1 was not designed for huge decks. That's what T2 is for. I'd be all for lowering the limit to 105 cards for T1, and I'd be for lowering the limit to 98 cards in a ROOT game.
I accept this challenge. I will build a 100+ card type 1 deck that I will play in major tournaments this season and try to win with it.
-
Addendum to my previous message:
I went through and tallied up all of the generic heroes with abilities that have even remotely useful abilities, this is all of them.
White: War Officer, Elders of Jerusalem (Maybe).
Teal: Priests of Christ.
Red: Spy, Recruiting Officer, Army of Sims/Men of Judah.
Purple: King's Daughter.
Green: Midwives, Armorbearer.
Gold: Isrealite Archer, Good Samaritan, Watchful Servant.
Blue: Tribal Elder, Servant Girl (maybe).
Silver: Cherebum, Seraphim (both), Angel of the Harvest, Providing Angel, Guardian Angel.
There's hardly enough in any brigade to build a solid offense made largely from generics. I put such a heavy emphasis on generics because, if you just 2x all your unique heroes, chances are you're gonna waste most of them with the uniqueness rule.
-
Quick Question. How would a typical ROOT monthly tourny equal in difficultly against other local, state, and regional tournies?
-
Quick Question. How would a typical ROOT monthly tourny equal in difficultly against other local, state, and regional tournies?
ROOT is tougher than any live local/district tournament I've ever played in except for Wild Bill's annual T2 blowout which is technically a local. That has nothing to do with the size/type of decks people play and everything to do with the caliber and dedication of players willing to participate in ROOT.
-
I would say it's comparable to a regional in terms of the number of highly skilled players playing. This month RooT is a little smaller, but there's still several players who have won at the State and Regional level.
-
Further adding to my rant about no good generic heroes....
Good is supposed to be stronger than evil in Redemption right? Why are there LOADS of generic ECs with fantastic abilities, but... only 21 "okay" generic heroes? Really?
Angels and demons have the most generics by far, but why are demons so much better?
-
I would say it's comparable to a regional in terms of the number of highly skilled players playing. This month RooT is a little smaller, but there's still several players who have won at the State and Regional level.
+1 I would say the skill set and diversity is equal to that of a regional tournament.
-
I would say it's comparable to a regional in terms of the number of highly skilled players playing. This month RooT is a little smaller, but there's still several players who have won at the State and Regional level.
+1 I would say the skill set and diversity is equal to that of a regional tournament.
And I would say this is another reason that ROOT is so small. A newer player is HIGHLY unlikely to dip into those waters primarily because of the caliber of play. Also, I have seen enough threads complaining about ROOT newbies that it scared me away from it. It also requires some internet server skills that your average (and also younger) Redemption player might not have. Don't misunderstand, I'm not on a rant about ROOT, but understand that there are several reasons that it will not have a lot of players besides the huge deck/lost souls drought issue that is being discussed here.
-
And I would say this is another reason that ROOT is so small. A newer player is HIGHLY unlikely to dip into those waters primarily because of the caliber of play.
I used to think that too. But then we split ROOT to take out all those top players, and give the new players a chance to win some games and win some free booster packs even. But it really didn't work. The new players that I expected never showed up, and in fact overall ROOT participation went down. Since putting all the players back together, ROOT participation has gone up again.
-
well i never participated in the split but i think it honestly just caused confusion rather then having one tourney the issues at hand are obvious i just know that i personally feel like i have to do well to prove myself and when i lose it upsets me cause i don't wanna be thought of us not skilled enough or a noob whatever those who know me know what i can do in this game im just trying to use root to explore but i don't want to explore something that when i go to real events is completely diffrent
-
::Stands up::
Well, I must confess that I am a repeat offender guilty of oversized deck usage. ::)
I never did this to tick people off. Sorry if I "offended" anyone. :)
Just wanted to experiment to try and make it usable in a tournament one day. I guess in ROOT I will ask the person I am playing if they want to stick with normal tourney time limits (:45 for T1, 1:15 for T2). Maybe that will make people feel better since it will be more realistic? I try to experiment alot in ROOT. I am a T2 player, and most in ROOT play T1, so I try to make my decks larger since I am more familiar with that format.
I like the idea of control decks, since T1 is overrun with aggro decks.
I appreciate the help some ROOT players have given me to help speed up the bigger decks and I try to implement the suggestions. :)
I really have played with oversized decks in some tourneys over the years with minor success (T1-placed 2nd at a small regionals with a 105er--which I think would not have done well in a normal sized regional; and 2x 3rd places in T2 regionals with 203-252ers), so I really do play with the stuff and try to make them competitive. :)
I also think RTS is faster than real life since the auto shuffle is wonderful compared to real shuffling which can be lengthy, tho ANB and Gates don't do as well in RTS.
-
A
newer player is HIGHLY unlikely to dip into those waters primarily because of the caliber of play.
I would disagree. When I first joined the board I was eager to join Jacob's Ladder, old school ROOT, and play top players and learn from them. I have seen many players join online tournaments and become a much better player. I will say two of which I personally know; Adotson and Red. Both these players are active on the board and online play and I think most ROOT participants can vouch for their progress.
I think the main issue for ROOT is time, which big decks is really not a factor, it's being online, challenging, accepting and playing the games.
-
yeah agreed but big decks also play a factor there both valid componets to the problem no one any bigger then the other and both need a way to be solved
-
Why not make two versions of ROOT.... one with short time limits to simulate real tournaments for people who want to practice for tournaments online, and one with longer time limits for people to have fun with random decks.
-
Another option could be to have different time limits for Swiss games and challenge/bonus games. That might be a little more confusing, but could make for a good middle ground. Dividing RooT would not really work because there's so few people in it right now anyway.
-
Having fun with random decks isn't what ROOT is. ROOT is an official tournament. If you want to have fun with random decks, just play pick-up games.
-
agree with pol
-
Having fun with random decks isn't what ROOT is. ROOT is an official tournament. If you want to have fun with random decks, just play pick-up games.
Or, play fun decks in officially tournaments. ^_^
-
i still dont understand what the big boo-hoo is over people using big decks. so what if someone uses a big deck in root? if you want to play in an official tournament with normal time limits, then go find an official IRL tournament to play in. more than anything, im GLAD to see a format that fosters a turtle deck. im sure there are just as many turtlers that are sick of not having enough time in IRL tournaments to get their deck going and getting stomped by rush decks. they finally have their day in a SINGLE format and the best we can muster is complaining about it? shame.
and this is coming from the guy that adheres to a strict policy of 50 card decks!
-
i still dont understand what the big boo-hoo is over people using big decks. so what if someone uses a big deck in root? if you want to play in an official tournament with normal time limits, then go find an official IRL tournament to play in. more than anything, im GLAD to see a format that fosters a turtle deck. im sure there are just as many turtlers that are sick of not having enough time in IRL tournaments to get their deck going and getting stomped by rush decks. they finally have their day in a SINGLE format and the best we can muster is complaining about it? shame.
and this is coming from the guy that adheres to a strict policy of 50 card decks!
This. Very much this.
As I said before, do we REALLY want nothing but same old offense heavy decks year in, year out? Is that all you want to play and face? Don't the same decks get old after a while?
-
I think the problem is that Redemption is a slow game compared to most card games, games take 1/2 an hour in T1 and an hour in T2 (at least something like that) and that's with aggressive type decks. Whereas most card games can get a 3 game round in that much time, so a turtle deck works better because it can usually win in a few turns once it goes off, whereas in redemption it takes at least 3 (assuming before it goes off it doesn't rescue) So when a turtle deck comes in redemption so it makes the games even longer.
So the problem isn't with turtle decks or large decks, but with the redemption game mechanic that in a time limit will make most turtle decks time out and almost unplayable in a T1 tournament (and difficult in T2) and also Turtle deck games tend to be even longer (I've had 2+ hour games against my friend who plays defensively)
-
(I've had 2+ hour games against my friend who plays defensively)
I've totally been the cause of some 2-3 hour games. ;D
-
Having fun with random decks isn't what ROOT is. ROOT is an official tournament. If you want to have fun with random decks, just play pick-up games.
I have fun with random decks in official tournaments.
-
As I said before, do we REALLY want nothing but same old offense heavy decks year in, year out? Is that all you want to play and face? Don't the same decks get old after a while?
i for one thought it was a breath of fresh air to see new turtle decks finally become viable in a tournament format. not only because it was finally something new aside from the slew of cookie-cutter tgt/fbtn/ztemple/etc etc oversaturating root, but because they actually became a challenge to face off against, especially towards a rush deck.
-
(I've had 2+ hour games against my friend who plays defensively)
I've totally been the cause of some 2-3 hour games. ;D
Yeah, that's part of the problem.
The point is, it's very rude in a tournament game. Sure, you may be having fun sitting around behind your wall well beyond when you normally would have lost 0-2, but that attitude is assuming your opponent's time is not valuable.
Furthermore, turtles are not needed to stem the tide of rush decks. The new set fixed that problem, and a rush deck will lose to a balanced deck most of the time. Not to mention, a turtle will lose to a balanced deck most of the time. The problem isn't that turtles are hard to beat, the issue is that they are not fun to play against, and waste massive amounts of time.
-
the issue is that they are not fun to play against, and waste massive amounts of time.
I've had some games against Disciple/TGT speed decks that weren't much fun to play against...and afterwards felt like it was a waste of time...
Personally I like the challenge of facing a big deck and seeing if my balanced deck can break thru.
I understand what you're saying Pol, but it's simply a matter of opinion.
-
I've had some games against Disciple/TGT speed decks that weren't much fun to play against...and afterwards felt like it was a waste of time...
A waste of 10 minutes is a lot different than a waste of 2 hours, as I'm sure you are aware.
-
I agree with Justin. I like TGT, some don't. Some like long games, I don't.
What irks me is slow decks in tournaments (which you also mentioned was an issue). I fail to see how it is dissimilar in the slightest from stalling, which is against the rules.
-
I've had some games against Disciple/TGT speed decks that weren't much fun to play against...and afterwards felt like it was a waste of time...
A waste of 10 minutes is a lot different than a waste of 2 hours, as I'm sure you are aware.
So what's an acceptable amount of time that is okay to be wasted?
-
One hour. Like in a real tournament. Where the time limit should be for ROOT.
-
The problem isn't that turtles are hard to beat, the issue is that they are not fun to play against, and waste massive amounts of time.
So, in fact, there is NO need to add a new batch of cards to the list of required staples, as was supposed previously.
-
Reaching back to the middle of the thread doesn't profit anyone. We're on a much different aspect of the argument now.
-
Whether or not large decks are hard to beat is a different aspect of the argument from whether large decks are hard to beat?
-
Reaching back to the middle of the thread doesn't profit anyone. We're on a much different aspect of the argument now.
In other words "I changed the topic because you proved me wrong, so don't bring it up again"
-
I've maintained consistently that big decks aren't hard to beat with a balanced deck. Check the entire thread and you'll find I never said otherwise. What I did say is that from time to time, big decks will get impossibly lucky with soul burying, and that players can sometimes lose to them because they're not standard decks. My gripe was with people having to prepare for decks that are squarely outside the scope of a real tournament meta when playing ROOT, not that turtles are too good.
I don't know why Schaef wants to keep revisiting that part of the argument when we're now talking about time wasting, but there's my position, once again, unchanged throughout the thread.
-
So you're whining that occasionally, you could lose through bad luck? Checkers seems like the game for you.
-
(I've had 2+ hour games against my friend who plays defensively)
I've totally been the cause of some 2-3 hour games. ;D
Yeah, that's part of the problem.
The point is, it's very rude in a tournament game. Sure, you may be having fun sitting around behind your wall well beyond when you normally would have lost 0-2, but that attitude is assuming your opponent's time is not valuable.
Furthermore, turtles are not needed to stem the tide of rush decks. The new set fixed that problem, and a rush deck will lose to a balanced deck most of the time. Not to mention, a turtle will lose to a balanced deck most of the time. The problem isn't that turtles are hard to beat, the issue is that they are not fun to play against, and waste massive amounts of time.
Except usually the opponent said they had a fun time during my 2-3 hour games. I don't just sit there and do nothing, I make it an intense match.
-
My gripe was with people having to prepare for decks that are squarely outside the scope of a real tournament meta when playing ROOT, not that turtles are too good.
If turtles aren't good, I'm not grasping your notion that you "have to" prepare for them to begin with. You have at least a low-percentage chance to lose to a deck of any shape or size, regardless of the quality of either. To say that percentage is not high enough to concern you speaks against the alleged requirement to include these cards.
I just want to make sure this issue - raised by you - suggesting anyone said that players are "supposed to" include all these cards in decks and homogenize everything is settled satisfactorily. The only thing demonstrated by saying there's a different aspect under discussion, is the amount of time that passed after you dropped that bomb and didn't come back to address the responses.
-
So you're whining that occasionally, you could lose through bad luck? Checkers seems like the game for you.
I've maintained consistently that big decks aren't hard to beat with a balanced deck. Check the entire thread and you'll find I never said otherwise. What I did say is that from time to time, big decks will get impossibly lucky with soul burying, and that players can sometimes lose to them because they're not standard decks. My gripe was with people having to prepare for decks that are squarely outside the scope of a real tournament meta when playing ROOT, not that turtles are too good.
I don't know why Schaef wants to keep revisiting that part of the argument when we're now talking about time wasting, but there's my position, once again, unchanged throughout the thread.
Maybe you should read what people say instead of trying to speak for them. He said what his gripe was and your misrepresenting it.
I agree that unrealistic environment is an issue with ROOT. It is the main reason I don't play. I'm not scared of Big Decks, but I could do 30 - 45 minute rounds I dont have time for 1 - 2 hour matches, especially since I have never seen any of those monster decks at any of the tournaments that I have attended. I want to practice for real tournaments, and ROOT is not that environment.
-
I agree that unrealistic environment is an issue with ROOT. It is the main reason I don't play. I'm not scared of Big Decks, but I could do 30 - 45 minute rounds I dont have time for 1 - 2 hour matches, especially since I have never seen any of those monster decks at any of the tournaments that I have attended. I want to practice for real tournaments, and ROOT is not that environment.
And this is why I said a few pages back to split it. Some people obviously LIKE using turtles and other decks in a tournament setting, while others want to practice for real tournaments.
Make an offshoot called "Realistic ROOT" if this many people say they don't play because its not "realistic." You'd gain all those players back, and then people who actually enjoy using different styles of decks can continue to play in the other half of ROOT.
-
So you're whining that occasionally, you could lose through bad luck? Checkers seems like the game for you.
I've maintained consistently that big decks aren't hard to beat with a balanced deck. Check the entire thread and you'll find I never said otherwise. What I did say is that from time to time, big decks will get impossibly lucky with soul burying, and that players can sometimes lose to them because they're not standard decks. My gripe was with people having to prepare for decks that are squarely outside the scope of a real tournament meta when playing ROOT, not that turtles are too good.
I don't know why Schaef wants to keep revisiting that part of the argument when we're now talking about time wasting, but there's my position, once again, unchanged throughout the thread.
Maybe you should read what people say instead of trying to speak for them. He said what his gripe was and your misrepresenting it.
I agree that unrealistic environment is an issue with ROOT. It is the main reason I don't play. I'm not scared of Big Decks, but I could do 30 - 45 minute rounds I dont have time for 1 - 2 hour matches, especially since I have never seen any of those monster decks at any of the tournaments that I have attended. I want to practice for real tournaments, and ROOT is not that environment.
The past 2 nats winners in t1-2p have used ROOT to playtest and practice.
-
I agree that testing decks should be used for pick up games only.
-
I've maintained consistently that big decks aren't hard to beat with a balanced deck. Check the entire thread and you'll find I never said otherwise. What I did say is that from time to time, big decks will get impossibly lucky with soul burying,
I know, it is very frusterating when you work on your deck for umpteen hours to go to a tournaments, that are so few and far between, only to lose to someone who spends significantly less time on their deck all because they didn't draw souls.
There is something to be said about fun and fellowship in a card game but it seems to me that "luck is good because it can help newer players win" is a cop out. Why can't we have fun and fellowship and have less luck invovled. Last tournament I beat Guardian because I didn't draw any lost souls, now that isn't very fair to him is it? Frankly, it cheats both of us. We both didn't get legitimate chances to test our decks. I don't exactly know what can be done to correct the problem, maybe add more lost souls to deck building rules (or making a requirement that says you start out win x amount of soul in a territory), still it can be really frusterating and it is hard to feel like having fun or fellowship when you just got anhilated by something you cannot control. Now, I am not opposed to letting newer player win, but on the other hand why should they if they haven't put much time into deck building. Besides that is what type A is for.
As for Root it seems only logical to simulate the most accurate tournament settings possible.
-
I don't exactly know what can be done to correct the problem, maybe add more lost souls to deck building rules (or making a requirement that says you start out win x amount of soul in a territory), still it can be really frusterating and it is hard to feel like having fun or fellowship when you just got anhilated by something you cannot control. Now, I am not opposed to letting newer player win, but on the other hand why should they if they haven't put much time into deck building. Besides that is what type A is for.
The problem with that is when you get a lousy draw and don't get defense.
-
I don't exactly know what can be done to correct the problem, maybe add more lost souls to deck building rules (or making a requirement that says you start out win x amount of soul in a territory), still it can be really frusterating and it is hard to feel like having fun or fellowship when you just got anhilated by something you cannot control. Now, I am not opposed to letting newer player win, but on the other hand why should they if they haven't put much time into deck building. Besides that is what type A is for.
The problem with that is when you get a lousy draw and don't get defense.
That is true, there is really no good way to fix it I guess, a possible band aid maybe limiting big decks though. Like Shaef said, it is just the nature of the beast.
-
And this is why I said a few pages back to split it. Some people obviously LIKE using turtles and other decks in a tournament setting, while others want to practice for real tournaments.
Make an offshoot called "Realistic ROOT" if this many people say they don't play because its not "realistic." You'd gain all those players back, and then people who actually enjoy using different styles of decks can continue to play in the other half of ROOT.
It's the ROOT with different time limits than a real tournament that should be an offshoot. ROOT is an officially-sanctioned tournament with RNRS points to be had. Why do we think it's ok to give it drastically longer time limits when the medium itself should make games even faster? Why does ROOT get silly house rules but TEAMS can't make Doubt more useful?
-
So the problem isn't with turtle decks or large decks, but with the redemption game mechanic that in a time limit will make most turtle decks time out and almost unplayable in a T1 tournament (and difficult in T2) and also Turtle deck games tend to be even longer (I've had 2+ hour games against my friend who plays defensively)
I know the conversation has swayed to a new topic, but it seems like Matt (christiangamer) is bringing up new "problems'. People like this are never going to be satisfied.
I would say time limit in ROOT is common sense, but hard to factor. Deck size in type 1 also seems kind of fair, type 2 is for the big boy decks, type 1 is for smaller size and having one of everything. The drawing of lost souls is always going to be a factor that no one can control, but you can include cards to stimulate souls. Trust me though, I have not ranked at a nationals in type 2 because of my opponent not having lost souls, so I know just as good as anyone how it feels. But in reality it's hard to say you can't make your deck this size because in reality you are going to make people mad who like using larger decks, UTHminister and slugfencer being two great players who do this. So Matt, try to relax and realize you are playing for fun and when you play someone who beats you b/c of TGT, not drawing lost souls, or because the game was so long you gave up, just remember not every game is like that at all and do not cuss and put your opponent down b/c you lost a game. Learn from your loss and get better and you will do fine. After all it is just an online tournament...
-
Why do we think it's ok to give it drastically longer time limits when the medium itself should make games even faster?
#1 it's ok because that was what the players voted for, and the leaders decided to let them have it.
#2 the medium does NOT make games faster. It speeds shuffling, but it makes about everything else slower. The cards are smaller, so it takes more time to figure out what your opponent puts on the table. And motions that are very simple IRL (like putting a card on top of your deck) take longer to do within the RTS program.
Why does ROOT get silly house rules but TEAMS can't make Doubt more useful?
#1 whether the "house rule" of an extended time limit is "silly" or not, is obviously a matter of opinion.
#2 I TOTALLY wish that TEAMS could still have the house rule that made Doubt playable. But I still support Rob's decision of course.
im GLAD to see a format that fosters a turtle deck...and this is coming from the guy that adheres to a strict policy of 50 card decks!
I applaud MKC for being willing to appreciate the opportunity provided to other deck types / player preferences, despite the fact that he doesn't share them.
-
ROOT does consist of highly skilled players and I have seen newer players develop because of it. I do encourage new players to join ROOT for this reason.
Also, there are some problems with ROOT when it comes to its capabilities or lack thereof as Prof U stated Gates of Hell and Susanna...ect. I hate when my opponent has to use Susanna's ability to look at X and place under deck because tschnically the RTS program doesnt support this action. or try to reveal the bottom card of deck, or discard the bottom card of deck. BROKEN.
I supprt turtle decks for the reason of having new decks to play against as well as a good way to practice new decks for physical tournaments.
ROOT Time should not be 2 hours but i agree longer than 45 min. due to lag. Maybe a happy medium of 1 hr 15 min?
-
#1 it's ok because that was what the players voted for, and the leaders decided to let them have it.
No, it's not. 1 hour got the most votes. Regardless, that was a while ago. Open the polls to current players again and let's see what happens. And while we're being consistent, let's let Redemption players vote for how long the time limits should be at other official tournaments as well. Oh, and let's vote on giving Split Altar an errata. Then let's vote on whether Damsel is a male or female. When we've had all those votes, we can vote for making T1 63 card minimum 6 LS to win. And to cap it all off, let's have a vote on what, if any, gender Faithful Servant should have. To make the voting skewed like it was with the time limit, we'll make the options "male," "female," or "genderless." Then, when Male gets 30 votes, Female gets 20, and genderless gets 10, we'll go with genderless because it's in the middle.
In case you couldn't tell, that rant was split into three parts. First being, the people who supposedly voted the 2 hour time limit into law in ROOT don't play anymore. If we had the vote again, it would be much shorter. Second, since when do we vote for stuff? Third, the original poll was hugely flawed because it had 3 options and the one that got the most votes didn't win. 2 hours was not the median, since the vote was 1, 2, or no limit. 1.5 hours was the median, yet we got 2 hours even though 1 hour got the most votes. I'm not necessarily wanting to die on the hill of a 1 hour limit (even though, as an official tournament, that's what it should be at the very most), but I agree with RTSM, 2 hours is WAY too long, and an 1.25 hours is a tolerable compromise.
the medium does NOT make games faster. It speeds shuffling, but it makes about everything else slower. The cards are smaller, so it takes more time to figure out what your opponent puts on the table. And motions that are very simple IRL (like putting a card on top of your deck) take longer to do within the RTS program.
Yes, it does. Shuffling and searching a deck physically is the longest operation in a real game, especially with a large deck, and RTS makes it take seconds instead of minute+. Many, many other operations are made marginally faster as well, such as D3 (just click a button), return to hand (right-click and select, no need to arrange hand), and even playing cards from hand (double-click, no need to grab with hand not holding the cards, and in bigger hands, sift through and grab). The operations that are made longer are infinitesimally so. Even the slowest players can right-click and select in under two seconds. The only operation that takes significantly longer is revealing top deck to play, and even that still only takes five seconds. As for "time to figure out what your opponent puts on the table," that's bogus because clicking on any card will bring up its text description, on your side of the field, in bigger font than would be in even a normal redemption game, not to mention everyone playing ROOT right now knows all commonly-played cards by art. And if someone plays a card that people wouldn't know just by looking at it, they also wouldn't know it just by looking at it in a real game.
#2 I TOTALLY wish that TEAMS could still have the house rule that made Doubt playable. But I still support Rob's decision of course.
Let's vote.
-
http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=19769.msg308869#msg308869 (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=19769.msg308869#msg308869)
Yay for actual data polled from you, the gamer.
-
I voted 30 mins in that poll and that still stands for me.
-
I voted 30 mins in that poll and that still stands for me.
And honestly, that is completely unrealistic. Normal games don't take that short of time.
-
The data in that thread is quite amazing. Almost everyone said they expected games to take 1 hour, yet voted for no time limit. Also, the people voting then are not the people who would be voting now per se. Furthermore, that poll was taken when finding online games was much easier, and possibly the mentality of superturtles that caused everyone to stop playing online will have run its course even with some of the people who remain.
We have a chance to solve two issues at once here. If we have a reasonable time limit on ROOT, more people will be able to play. I have a fairly lax schedule and I even find it difficult being able to play when I know I may have to devote 2 hours to it. A 1 hour time limit is still 15 minutes longer than a real tournament (surely, prof, fast shuffle/search/draw at least mitigates how slow RTS play is in having to point and click down to at least 15 minutes?), and most people can find one hour in their schedule 3 times a week.