Author Topic: Thoughts about Changing the Structure of How the Game is Run (Read 12624 times)

uthminister [BR] · « **Reply #25 on:** August 13, 2012, 04:31:26 PM »

That seems like a correct understanding on a broad scale, but rules being consistent in their teaching and enforcing on the local level can only lessen the occasions where those mistakes happen.

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #26 on:** August 13, 2012, 04:38:07 PM »

Quote from: Soundman2 on August 13, 2012, 04:25:33 PM

So this is all about some bad rulings? Then what you are proposing will not fix that, because the elders are all human, and are not infallible they will get stuff wrong they will miss things.

No, it's not. It's about the failures with the Elder system being a 1=4 system.

For example:

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on August 13, 2012, 02:18:46 PM

The important thing I think is that no one should be creating cards AND playtesting them in a given year.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #27 on:** August 13, 2012, 04:59:49 PM »

@Soundman, there's a difference between sometimes making mistakes and making ridiculous mistakes. If a judge were to have been asked whether Covenant with Death restricts Good Weapons, getting that wrong would be an example of human error. But the example of Balaam and Lurking, where two Judges were about to rule incorrectly on one of the most basic rules of Redemption is something other.

I totally agree that the catch-all "Elder" should be split into its four constituent parts.

ChristianSoldier · « **Reply #28 on:** August 13, 2012, 05:19:47 PM »

I would love to see the playtesters split into designers (or creators) and developers (the ones who take the cards from the designers and make them into the playable versions that get printed) I'm not calling either a playtester because really the cards should be playtested at every step, the designers should playtest the cards, its just that there job isn't to decide the finalized abilities.

This would not only keep cards more balanced, but it would keep cards from being pushed through because the card's creator wanted it, even though it might be too powerful or complex or whatever.

And yes, I'd volunteer to be either a designer or developer.

Master KChief · « **Reply #29 on:** August 13, 2012, 05:47:06 PM »

Quote from: Mr.Hiatus on August 13, 2012, 02:13:52 PM

What won type 1 2p and t2 2p this year? A Unified Kingdom deck and a fbtnb deck...old school stuff, as great as the past sets have been, no complaints there from anyone, correct?

This is the wrong way to look at this. The tournament is played on a flawed system of strictly lolswiss format. The correct way to look at it is how many of each type of deck topped.

Quote

How many rules have gone right at Nationals? Majority.

With a field of the 'best' Judges for this game all accumulated in the biggest tournament gathering of the year, the correct answer to your question should be 'all'.

Quote from: uthminister [BR] on August 13, 2012, 03:15:48 PM

In the "other competitive card games" there is a system of training judges. Those people have to not only finish an online test successfully, but they also have to complete a certain amount of hours of training under an official judge. The only thing I see that those games do to give players an incentive to become judges are "Judge only promo cards" which are highly sought after versions of already released cards. Perhaps the full art versions of the dominants would be a good starting point for "Judge only promo cards" as long as they were tournament legal.

I fully agree a similar incentive program should be put in place for those dedicating their time to becoming a qualified Judge. The card game I'm currently playing does Judge playmats.

Quote from: lightningninja on August 13, 2012, 03:51:51 PM

After playing 4+ other card games, this one is still the most balanced/strategic I have yet played.

Have to disagree with you there, many broken cards that remain unchecked still plague this game.

Quote

No other game tries for balance, they try for money.

Half true. All of the top mainstream games try for balance. And if you aren't trying for money to fund your game, then you probably shouldn't be in the CCG business.

Quote

Play yu-gi-oh for just a TINY bit and tell me you're not 1. frustrated with ridiculous, stupid rule changes just to make certain cards very expensive/wanted...

The playerbase are what makes cards expensive.

Quote

3. still losing to the same decks that take over 50% of the top 32 slots at major YCS tournaments, with only 1-2 cards different from each other.

I'm failing to see how this is any different from seeing Speed/TGT/Sam's top every major tournament in the past. If something is good, and you're a player that plays to win, why on earth would you use something that is a lower tier? It's common sense that the Tier 1 decks will be the decks you see top consistently at tournaments. I would also like to remind you that absolutely zero of the decks you are referencing to topped Worlds this past weekend.

Quote

You want a well-run, well-designed game run by leaders that listen to their players? That's Redemption. And it can't really get a whole lot better being the niche game it is.

It can, and it has. There is always room for improvement, and a game should not limit itself in quality simply because it's a 'niche' game.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #30 on:** August 13, 2012, 07:57:47 PM »

Quote from: Master KChief on August 13, 2012, 05:47:06 PM

I would also like to remind you that absolutely zero of the decks you are referencing to topped Worlds this past weekend.

I heard it was less than zero percent.

Quote from: Master KChief on August 13, 2012, 05:47:06 PM

I fully agree a similar incentive program should be put in place for those dedicating their time to becoming a qualified Judge. The card game I'm currently playing does Judge playmats.

My name is YMT, and I approve this message.

lightningninja · « **Reply #31 on:** August 13, 2012, 09:30:15 PM »

Quote from: Master KChief on August 13, 2012, 05:47:06 PM

Have to disagree with you there, many broken cards that remain unchecked still plague this game.

Hm... but what wins most of the time isn't the 'broken' cards. In other games like yugioh, those broken cards do win. And they're expected to.

Quote

Half true. All of the top mainstream games try for balance. And if you aren't trying for money to fund your game, then you probably shouldn't be in the CCG business.

I think I disagree. I don't think for a second anyone thought tour guide was 'balanced.' But they knew he'd bring in money, so they went with it.

Soundman2 · « **Reply #32 on:** August 13, 2012, 09:40:57 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on August 13, 2012, 04:59:49 PM

@Soundman, there's a difference between sometimes making mistakes and making ridiculous mistakes. If a judge were to have been asked whether Covenant with Death restricts Good Weapons, getting that wrong would be an example of human error. But the example of Balaam and Lurking, where two Judges were about to rule incorrectly on one of the most basic rules of Redemption is something other.

Had they done that before? Is it habitual for them to do that? (if it is booth of them should be fired) Looking at how the card is printed the last part can be easily forgotten (I do this all the time). It was caught before it went any further. Doing it this way would turn rulings into a debate.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #33 on:** August 13, 2012, 11:27:07 PM »

Your pronouns need some clarification, son!

ChristianSoldier · « **Reply #34 on:** August 14, 2012, 02:14:52 AM »

Most of the changes have little to do with broken cards. Really the bigger issue is with the pace at which rulings get made and the speed at which they become known. The idea of splitting the people is so that some groups can focus on rules, some can focus on new cards and some can focus on spreading the game. (of course there can and probably will always be overlap between them, but it gives different people different priorities in what they are doing)

Other reasons for the split:
Design and develop: to keep cards from being pushed through the system by their creators.
Playtesters and rules people: To keep the rules from being made better because of rule makers like the card combos they helped design (whether or not the combo is good for the game).
Spreading the game and rules people: There are some people who are incredibly important in spreading the game and they are good at that, but it is no guarantee that they are good with rules.

Of course the big problem is that basically everyone involved in this process is volunteering and in general they have lives outside of this game there may be a lack of time and/or people to achieve this.

(keep in mind, I have very little knowledge of if and how often cards get pushed through or rules don't get changed because of people's cards/card combos, I'm more saying it could happen and a way to avoid it, or at least manage it better, is to have different groups working on different things)

sk · « **Reply #35 on:** August 14, 2012, 12:04:29 PM »

The sheer volume of posts online are why rulings are complicated. I'm very ative on here, yet have lost games because I hadn't heard about the Goliath/WoP ruling, that Hormah+Outpost didn't work, or that the change in what negates actually negate had been corrected. When threads go for 8 pages with members sometimes just giving opinion, and a broken seach function, I can't even find rulings. What we really need is an admin that reduces closed threads to just the question, cards' abilities, and the one or two posts that make the ruling and explain it. It could even be a summary post. Threads with quick questions can just be deleted once answered and thanked. An organized board means judges will see correct rulings. Alternately, frequent updates to the REG and a quarterly pdf version judges can search on a phone would make rulings more consistant.

Adding new judges just gives more voices authority. What we have now works, as long as a judge making consistently poor rulings is educated or removed from judging. Tiers will just mean that low-tier judges are ignored, as was the case before elders were specified.

I think that player education may be just as significant an issue. If someone is playing at the nats level, they should have read the rulebook well enough to understand prevent. While I recognize differences, chess tournaments run smoothly because you don't have ruling issues to deal with because players know the rules.

In my opinion, it is not important that the card designer and playtester responsibilities be split, but it may be good to have a couple extra casual playtesters that would spend considerable time building unexpected decks. More testers means more games, more play styles considered, and better awareness of what could dominate. In fact, playtesting privileges might be a good way to attract potential hosts or dedicated judges. Since they don't play in tournaments, yet see the top decks, they could be ideal playtesters that won't have a self-serving agenda.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #36 on:** August 14, 2012, 12:56:30 PM »

I assume that the CBP LS vs. FBN LS ruling being mentioned in this thread is referring to one of my games at Nats. I was a player in the game, and I remembered that there had been a big discussion of that ruling a while back, but couldn't remember how it turned out. After the game, we checked the forum and discovered that the official ruling was that the CBP LS is basically CBN and therefore the FBN LS doesn't affect it. Therefore the in-game ruling was incorrect. I am sorry that we got that wrong, but I hope that people can understand that the judge did his best to make a fair ruling. The wording on the CBP LS says "can't be prevented by a good card" and the FBN LS is NOT a "good card" but is a neutral card. It is easy to see why the judge would come to the wrong conclusion (and in fact, the original ruling of many elders including myself was the same until the most recent thread came along and changed our minds).

I'm assuming that the Lurking on Balaam ruling is referring to another of my games at Nats, although I'm not sure because I don't think anyone was ruling that it WOULD work, but rather that it was unanimously ruled that it did NOT work. The confusion here again was that Balaam says that he "can't be prevented". However since Lurking "interrupts" afterward, it SEEMS like it MIGHT be able to work. And in my particular game, this was the only possible way to avoid handing over the 5th LS, so it was worth at least checking with a judge. The judge made the right call, and the game ended.

I just want to say that I really appreciate the judges at Nats who sat out personally so that the rest of us could enjoy playing in a really fun tournament. I agree that we all need to continue to streamline the organization of rulings to make them easier for everyone to find and know. But I also think that we've come a long way with that over the last year, and appreciate everyone's efforts in that direction.

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #37 on:** August 14, 2012, 01:07:21 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on August 14, 2012, 12:56:30 PM

I just want to say that I really appreciate the judges at Nats who sat out personally so that the rest of us could enjoy playing in a really fun tournament. I agree that we all need to continue to streamline the organization of rulings to make them easier for everyone to find and know. But I also think that we've come a long way with that over the last year, and appreciate everyone's efforts in that direction.

Prof, I really appreciate your input, especially as the only elder to post in this thread. What do you think about some of the other proposals?

cardsofmanykinds · « **Reply #38 on:** August 14, 2012, 01:27:16 PM »

maybe this topic should be in gameplay variations? but then again most of those aren't serious...

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #39 on:** August 14, 2012, 01:36:30 PM »

Quote from: cardsofmanykinds on August 14, 2012, 01:27:16 PM

maybe this topic should be in gameplay variations? but then again most of those aren't serious...

This has nothing to do with gameplay. We should really have a general Redemption forum...

Rawrlolsauce! · « **Reply #40 on:** August 14, 2012, 01:38:57 PM »

I guess I semi support this. I don't think playtesters/designers need to be split up. That'd work if Redemption was a larger game, but the pool of qualified people just isn't that large. The pool of qualified people with the time and willingness to do it is even smaller.

If you're worried about play-testers pushing their own cards through, there's an easier solution to that. Keep the same people doing both, but divide them into two groups. Group A makes card set A which is play tested exclusively by Grou[ B, while Group B makes card set B which is play tested exclusively by Group A. I think it's unnecessary however.

The big part I agree with is the distinction between contributors and rulers. I might just be bias after what happened to me at nast 2011 though

(asked 4 elders a ruling question, none of them answered it right until I objected, one of whom was involved in the exact same ruling question a month earlier).

cardsofmanykinds · « **Reply #41 on:** August 14, 2012, 01:44:47 PM »

Quote from: Westy on August 14, 2012, 01:36:30 PM

Quote from: cardsofmanykinds on August 14, 2012, 01:27:16 PM
maybe this topic should be in gameplay variations? but then again most of those aren't serious...
This has nothing to do with gameplay. We should really have a general Redemption forum...

actually changing how the game is run would/could change gameplay

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #42 on:** August 14, 2012, 04:51:16 PM »

Quote from: Westy on August 14, 2012, 01:07:21 PM

Prof, I really appreciate your input, especially as the only elder to post in this thread. What do you think about some of the other proposals?

I think that from a purely objective level different people have different strengths. Some people are truly amazing at how they spread the game, and have done so for many years without burning out or resting on their past success. I personally have seen the ebbs and flows of a playgroup and know how difficult this is to do. It is a gift from God, and our game needs people like that.

Some people are truly amazing at how they are able to create unique and powerful deck combinations from the available cards in this game, and are able to pilot these decks with an abnormally low number of mistakes even against top competition. I personally would not put myself in this category, but see it in other elders. It is also a gift from God and our game benefits from people like that.

Some people are truly amazingly creative and are able to think of new and interesting cards that are both fun to play with AND Biblically-based. I find myself to be better at tweaking ideas than coming up with them from scratch, so I respect this ability of some of my fellow elders a lot. It is also a gift from God, and our game needs people like this as well.

Some people are truly amazing at taking new card ideas and really wringing them through the gauntlet to find all the possible ways to abuse those cards, and therefore the ways to reword them so that they do not break the game. Their skills are also a gift from God, and our game needs people like this as well.

Some people are really dedicated to spending a LOT of time on the forum to keep up with all the rulings, and try to really make everything consistent and understandable when it comes to making rulings themselves. Many people don't have the free time in their life to be able to do this sort of thing, and those who do have been given a gift from God as well, and our game needs people like this as well.

Thankfully there are people on the elder team who have each of these skills. Some people even have multiples of these skills, and I am thankful for all of them and their willingness to give so generously of their time and abilities to help this game that we all love.

While the proposal here of separating the duties of elders seems at face value to be make sense, I'm not sure how practical it really is. I'll focus on this in my next post.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #43 on:** August 14, 2012, 04:51:43 PM »

I started a long post that got more specific, but then realized that it was impossible to do that without things getting more personal than I think they should be. So I guess I'll just sum up by saying that dividing the elder team into smaller groups has 3 main problems:

1 - there wouldn't be enough people on each subgroup to accomplish their tasks with consistency. If one or two elders happened to be unable to make it to Nats, or were busy at crunch time of the year for playtesting, etc. it would REALLY cause problems.

2 - there would be hurt feelings.

3 - it's actually really hard to get good leadership to add to the mix. I know from running ROOT for a while that it was harder than I thought to find people to take it over (Jordan obviously being an exception). This is especially true when people who are very dependable on the forum (or in the game in general) one year, turn out to kinda disappear the next year.

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #44 on:** August 14, 2012, 06:28:35 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on August 14, 2012, 04:51:43 PM

I started a long post that got more specific, but then realized that it was impossible to do that without things getting more personal than I think they should be. So I guess I'll just sum up by saying that dividing the elder team into smaller groups has 3 main problems:

1 - there wouldn't be enough people on each subgroup to accomplish their tasks with consistency. If one or two elders happened to be unable to make it to Nats, or were busy at crunch time of the year for playtesting, etc. it would REALLY cause problems.

2 - there would be hurt feelings.

3 - it's actually really hard to get good leadership to add to the mix. I know from running ROOT for a while that it was harder than I thought to find people to take it over (Jordan obviously being an exception). This is especially true when people who are very dependable on the forum (or in the game in general) one year, turn out to kinda disappear the next year.

Very good points Prof.

1. You would need to appoint a few new people. For example, I look at Redoubter and Pol and they definitely have the ruling knowledge to be on that committee.

2. I thought about this, and it was why I had attempted to refrain from posting examples. I apologize that both involved you, I didn't realize it. This is not an attack, just making things work better, but sadly it will be personal. There's no avoiding that, but again, hopefully the game will be better for it in the end. I would hope most people would acknowledge their weaknesses, but it's not that simple.

3. People are more likely to stay when they are appointed to a position. It's true that our player base ebbs and flows, but if somebody leaves, a new person can take their place.

Redoubter · « **Reply #45 on:** August 14, 2012, 09:54:15 PM »

First:

EDIT: The tangent discussion has been taken care of. --> Friendly moderator.

Second:

I appreciate an Elder responding at all to this thread. I was afraid some posts might come off as attacking and you as a group would stay back and discuss this yourselves (which would be perfectly fine, IMO). However, I will disagree that it was just an isolated incident of incorrect rulings. The cases brought up suggest a systemic problem that we do have. I pointed out why the CBP Soul ruling was not known by those who made it, and it makes perfect sense. The Lurking vs Balaam ruling, however, was apparently ruled incorrectly by two separate judges/Elders when it is one of the most fundamental rules of the game: You cannot stop CBN. You cannot interrupt CBN. You cannot. That this fundamental rule was ruled wrong by multiple Elders is troubling.

However, these two cases are by no means the only situation where there was a problem, they just haven't been posted. I have an example that truly was truly disruptive, and others have more to add from what I've heard from them. However, we would be calling out one or two people in particular in each case, and its not fair to do so. If an Elder wants more information, please contact me by PM.

The problem is that these issues are able to be resolved, and shouldn't happen in the first place. Not at Nats or at the several Regionals where I have heard head-scratching rulings come out of (again going to my point that this is not isolated), or where the rules just were not known. I don't disagree that feelings can get hurt, and given the nature of this game, I'm not sure that it is more important to improve the game if it hurts people. However, there are ways we can help these problems in the future without 'demoting' anyone, and they should be pursued.

Drrek · « **Reply #46 on:** August 14, 2012, 10:16:00 PM »

Quote from: Redoubter on August 14, 2012, 09:54:15 PM

The Lurking vs Balaam ruling, however, was apparently ruled incorrectly by two separate judges/Elders when it is one of the most fundamental rules of the game: You cannot stop CBN. You cannot interrupt CBN. You cannot. That this fundamental rule was ruled wrong by multiple Elders is troubling.

You are misremembering why Lurking doesn't interrupt Balaam, its because Lurking is prevented by balaam before it can interrupt (Balaam is not CBN, he's CBP)

On the actual subject matter, I agree that certain Elders really shouldn't be the judges at high level tournaments if they are going to get basic rulings wrong. While the misruling of the CBP soul was a bad call, I can understand how someone could have missed the new ruling (and really we need to have a better system in place for ruling changes, because such a major ruling going by so quietly is not good), the messing up of the Lurking/Balaam ruling was a bad sign as to overall judging quality. I appreciate all that the elders have done for Redemption, but splitting the elders into different groups so that those who are better versed in the rulings are counted on for judging the larger tournaments would be, in my opinion, better for the game. I think it is a problem that one term, elder, is being used to encompass too many roles, and a split is warranted.

Redoubter · « **Reply #47 on:** August 14, 2012, 11:01:19 PM »

Quote from: Drrek on August 14, 2012, 10:16:00 PM

You are misremembering why Lurking doesn't interrupt Balaam, its because Lurking is prevented by balaam before it can interrupt (Balaam is not CBN, he's CBP)

Thanks for correcting my statement, it's what I meant to say...and I actually used that in a thread in the last 10 minutes, so I have no clue why I used the wrong rule

Agree with the rest of your statement as well.

Quote from: Master KChief on August 14, 2012, 10:14:33 PM

If you do not like it, then please, do feel free to ignore it and go off on your own tangent.

Sorry, but you are the one on your own tangent, and it is not helping or adding anything useful to the thread (especially the bits about how awesome some people are in another CCB and how credible their opinions on another CCG are). It doesn't belong here.

ChristianSoldier · « **Reply #48 on:** August 15, 2012, 12:14:38 AM »

I'm sorry if I kept a tangent going on a little longer than it probably should have. I have a tendency to want people to know what they are talking about.

More on topic, I think the first step in improving the ruling quality would be to keep the REG up to date on rulings, especially definitions of things that exists but maybe aren't too clear to everyone, like special initiative and how negates work. Much work has been done to make those work better and it really isn't helping anyone to have those rulings hidden in topics that could be buried in the ruling questions section of the boards.

This has the advantage of not needing any major changes to how the game is run, but would at least make it easier for a judge to look up rules. I would do this myself, but I have a hard enough time keeping up with the game rules as it is (and I'm usually the rules expert in my gaming groups).

I would like to see designers, developers and rule makers somewhat split (although there can be overlap) but it may not be possible at this time.

I do want to say something about comparing to other games, yes the game might be different and the community might be different, but game design and marketing principles are usually quite similar among even vastly different games, something might not work exactly the same, but the basic principles are usually the same in any kind of game design, especially among similar game times (like CCGs). But as Cactus is a small company, we have to be aware of realities that we aren't going to have a paid playtester team or anything like that and have to make due with what we have.

Redoubter · « **Reply #49 on:** August 15, 2012, 12:21:21 AM »

Quote from: ChristianSoldier on August 15, 2012, 12:14:38 AM

This has the advantage of not needing any major changes to how the game is run, but would at least make it easier for a judge to look up rules. I would do this myself, but I have a hard enough time keeping up with the game rules as it is (and I'm usually the rules expert in my gaming groups).

I agree with this sentiment, and that one of the most important things for us to correct is for there to be updates in the REG (for it to be searchable would also help

) or another central repository of rules.

News:

Author Topic: Thoughts about Changing the Structure of How the Game is Run (Read 12624 times)

Warrior_Monk

Warrior_Monk

Warrior_Monk

Rawrlolsauce!

Warrior_Monk