Author Topic: Rule Proposal: Only allow one deck per player in constructed categories. (Read 1819 times)

Chris · « **on:** July 07, 2014, 12:10:44 PM »

This has come up in the past, but with Nats looming, I'd like to bring it up again. I believe that the game will be better off if we change the rules so that each player can only use one deck per category. There are two key reasons for this:

No other major CCG allows multiple decks the way Redemption does. Magic: The Gathering and Yugioh both allow limited 15 card sideboards, and Pokemon doesn't allow anything. I know there are some members of the community who grow tired of comparisons to other CCGs, but when they've been around for over a decade and have managed to maintain massive player bases, they're doing something right.
The amount of money you spend shouldn't be the deciding factor on your success, after a certain point. It's true that you do have to invest in order to be successful, but that's an inherent part of CCGs. Cactus shouldn't be encouraging a competitive atmosphere where "more money = more success" more than it absolutely has to. This is especially true when a card exists that can only be used once.

I realize that there a few people who are opposed to this, on the grounds that it can be fun to play experimental decks and then switch to a "main" deck halfway through (or vice versa). I agree that that can be fun, but I also question why it's fair for a small handful of players to have that advantage and everyone else is stuck using one. This goes back to the second point: More money should not equal more success after a certain threshold has been reached.

browarod · « **Reply #1 on:** July 07, 2014, 12:50:02 PM »

I won't be able to attend Nats this year but I am definitely in favor of this for the reasons specified.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #2 on:** July 07, 2014, 12:59:35 PM »

I started this last year and it's still the right thing to do now.

DJWeb · « **Reply #3 on:** July 07, 2014, 01:42:07 PM »

I agree with this proposal. I have never been to tournaments higher than state, but I've heard about people choosing to play with different decks based on who they think they may be playing next. To me this doesn't sound right. Part of winning a tournament is building a good deck and if you have to play with different decks to beat certain opponents, I don't think you should really win. Also this could eliminate multiple uses of Haman's Plot by the same player, which I kind of think fits with the intent of the card.

Master KChief · « **Reply #4 on:** July 07, 2014, 02:13:47 PM »

Honestly doesn't matter to me either way, but the second point is loose and subjective at best. Price entry barrier is nothing new to CCGs. I don't turn on my TV to watch an F1 race and lament how the cost to compete has spiraled out of control. I don't watch the world series of poker and complain that I can't compete because I don't have $10,000 lying around to enter. Why do you feel you should only have to pay some arbitrary price to compete? There is a monetary barrier to entry in competitive Redemption, just like there is in racing cars, playing poker, and countless other activities. If people are not comfortable paying the money to overcome that barrier then maybe they should seriously think about whether they want to play competitive Redemption. Prices of cards are proof that people are willing to pay them. Cactus has absolutely no obligation to pander to people who for whatever reason think "ink and cardboard" should never cost more than a certain threshold. The market is driven by supply and demand.

This is entirely a matter of priorities. If you can't afford three decks because you need to support your family that's too bad, but I think we can both agree that your family should be priority #1. If competitive Redemption is your calling in life and you just have to get all the cards to build three decks to do so then abandon your family and buy them. That is an option, though it isn't (and shouldn't be) an appealing one to most people. Realistically, the barrier of entry in Redemption is very, very, VERY small, especially in comparison to 99% of most any other CCG found in big box stores. The fact that two or three hundred dollars can get you three of any of the very best Type 1 Redemption decks is a testament to that; that would barely get me a useable chassis to race in the cheapest of spec classes, nevermind build, maintenance, and competition costs. To some people out there the cost of a basketball is a significant barrier to entry to play that sport.

Think about your priorities and your financial situation and decide whether competitive Redemption is for you. If you say yes and can't afford three decks then either play one deck competitively (Haman's Plot is by no means the catalyst to competitive success) or play limited formats, and be very glad you even have that option. Prices and rules don't need to change. Cactus doesn't need to change rules to keep prices within the arbitrary range that you're willing to pay. People need to change their perspective.

DDiceRC · « **Reply #5 on:** July 07, 2014, 03:02:05 PM »

[BEGIN RANT]

Master KChief's post, while quite accurate about the comparative costs for CCGs (although the F1 racing analogy is more than a little stretched) reminds everything that I think is wrong with competitive Redemption. I have attended tournaments at every level, hosted up to the Regional level, and have even occasionally won an event here or there (except at National level). As a result of the hard-core competitive focus of many players, I have gradually cut back on playing, including completely quitting T1 altogether. That's just not why I play Redemption.

The Redemption tournament system has gradually moved from emphasizing fellowship among the players to emphasizing winning at all costs. A highly competitive atmosphere is not in and of itself a bad thing; it just doesn't work in all settings. I would really prefer if Redemption would split into a circuit of tournaments that focus on competition for the hard-core payers, and a system of tournaments that focus more on players getting together to enjoy the game and time with each other.

You can argue that players can already do that by just forming playgroups and staying out of the tournaments. The promotional card system, however, is set up to make tournament attendance desirable. A parallel system for both types of players would keep that intact.

Some players also argue that the only way to have fun is to win. If that is true, then you have to point out the obverse, that your goals is to make the game less fun for other people (since you will be winning more than they do, you hope). There are happily few that I've heard say this, but it isn't an attitude that Redemption should encourage.

As I said, the tournament atmosphere has led me to stop playing in certain categories, and even to consider how much hosting I want to do. I also have had one of my own kids drop out of Redemption entirely (ironically, to get involved with a more competitive game). If enough other players or hosts become discouraged by this (and honestly for all I know I'm the only one who is), it would be a blow to the game at a precarious point in its run.

I'm sure some readers of this post will assume it's sour grapes by a consistent loser who's just tired of losing. While I don't play primarily for competition, I have won two Regional titles, several State titles, and a number of local/district events in various categories. I also play another game competitively, and I have won a National title in that game, so competition is not unfamiliar to me.

Anyway, as my signature says I'm just an old curmudgeon who is probably out of touch with the majority of the Redemption community and who should just get back on my rocker and keep complaining about the kids on my lawn...

(BTW, I favor the "one deck" proposal that is the subject of this thread, which probably dooms the idea to failure.)

[END RANT]

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #6 on:** July 07, 2014, 03:47:46 PM »

My biggest issue with it is counter-decking people.

Cactus Game Design Message Boards

News:

Author Topic: Rule Proposal: Only allow one deck per player in constructed categories. (Read 1819 times)

Chris

Rule Proposal: Only allow one deck per player in constructed categories.

browarod

Re: Rule Proposal: Only allow one deck per player in constructed categories.

Alex_Olijar

Re: Rule Proposal: Only allow one deck per player in constructed categories.

DJWeb

Re: Rule Proposal: Only allow one deck per player in constructed categories.

Master KChief

Re: Rule Proposal: Only allow one deck per player in constructed categories.

DDiceRC

Re: Rule Proposal: Only allow one deck per player in constructed categories.

Warrior_Monk

Re: Rule Proposal: Only allow one deck per player in constructed categories.