Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Redemption® Resources and Thinktank => Topic started by: Rawrlolsauce! on December 23, 2011, 01:23:48 AM
-
I've seen quite a few threads on speed lately, so I thought I'd share my thoughts without spamming any of them. In this thread, I will explain my thoughts on speed. First, however, allow me explain my experiences and history to provide perspective.
Firstly, I should let everyone know I'm a huge fan of Starcraft 2, which tends to have many levels of strategy beyond Redemption. There are millions of players world wide that theorycraft and test various strategies and have come to various conclusions. This essentially makes a complex metagame, as thousands of the best players have different innovations and contributions. Although they are very different games in that Redemption relies on luck much more, I'm applying various thoughts and rules from Starcraft to Redemption if I feel they are translatable.
I have never played much Redemption. Especially this year, I have played just 2 games against anyone that I would consider a good player (in t1). It is doubtful I played more than 20 games against players I did not simply outclass in any specific year. I have always been far more interested in the strategic and deck building side of the game than the actual playing of the game. With the exception of combos or other silly things, my goal has been to build decks that, when piloted at a high level, will produce the highest win percentage possible. This often involved risky or abnormal play that anyone, including I, would openly admit relies on luck, but I felt my odds were simply better relying on said forms of luck compared to the alternative of cutting my advantage for safety. This idea that it is not deck quality or safety that matters, but the ability to win, has always led me to using speed. I almost exclusively played speed, so I am very familiar with all speed matchups. I am somewhat familiar with balanced decks, and not at all familiar with defense heavy decks.
I do not consider myself to be a top level player, but I do consider myself to be a high level player. I have not competed seriously since 2009, which was the height of my game. I have not experienced any major tournament success as of yet. When I was decent at this game, I was able to hold an acceptable winrate versus top level players, but I have never won a tournament above district level. I came close at Regionals 2009, placing second and losing my only game due to a silly mistake against John Earley. The real reason I lost that game is that I am a mechanically weak player, especially in person (due to lack of sleep at tournaments). I will constantly forget to play cards or activate artifacts. I try to analyze the game and possible scenarios, but I often go too far and miss the most obvious answers.
-
So, firstly one must understand speed in order to understand the implications. Many players will assume speed is just a deck that draws fast, but I disagree. I think speed is a deck that relies on drawing in order to stay competitive. This differentiates true speed from something like Tim Maly's deck. Speed has proven to be the strongest deck form for many reasons, mostly obvious, but for now I am focusing on speed versus speed.
As Ring Wraith and RDT have both expressed, speed vs speed tends to be a coin flip. I completely agree with this sentiment for a handful of reasons. The first of which is the snowball effect. For example, assuming identical decks, if by complete chance, one deck happens to draw Reach of Desperation first, we all assume he will be at a three card advantage, and therefore more likely to make successful blocks and rescues. What most fail to recognize is that drawing cards increases the likelihood of drawing cards that enable drawing. That three card advantage may soon compound into being a six or nine card advantage very shortly. Obviously, there is also a chance that the opponent his own copies of the cards in question and things will even out (assuming they are not nearing the end of the game), but there is a small problem with this logic. It operates under the pretense that drawing a specific card offers you some sort of strategic advantage or value regardless of when it is drawn. This is obviously not the case (to be put simply, drawing cards early is better than drawing cards slightly later).
I don't think anyone will argue that cards have different value when presented with different scenarios. One of the most convincing examples is The Strong Angel. The Strong Angel is one of the best heroes in the game early game, but is somewhat weak late game. As the game progresses, by even just one turn, the possible scenarios change, and therefore the values change. One crucial thing to note is that it is actually possible for The Strong Angel to last through many different scenarios if drawn early (early through late game), but only one scenario if drawn late (solely late game). This means the later you draw The Strong Angel, the more useless it becomes. The utility drops off sharply. In this sense, it is almost never disadvantageous in regards to the value of that specific card to draw it later rather than earlier.
In the case of The Strong Angel, this seems fairly obvious. The value is essentially regressive, and that indicates to everyone that you want it early. What is truly interesting to me is how the value of cards that are progressive transfer when drawn at different times. One of the best examples of a card with a progressive value is Chariots of Fire. Early game, Chariots of Fire is useless. Late game, Chariots of Fire is fantastic. However, regardless of when you draw Chariots of Fire, the value remains fairly similar. Although it offers more utility having it earlier, it offers almost as much utility having it later.
The second reason I agree with the sentiment expressed is because of speed play style. When one gets even a 1 soul advantage in speed vs speed, he forces the other player to over commit, as both players know that the game many end at any time by sheer luck of the draw. This over commitment may be in the form of attacking with a specific hero or acting more aggressively, but it essentially forces the other player to play at a subpar level. Subpar isn't the best phrase perhaps, as it is the correct move to play like such.
The final main reason I agree is speed decks rely more heavily on all of their cards than other deck archetypes do. Alex mentioned in another thread that speed vs speed should be less based on luck than other matchups simply due to the fact that players tend to draw more of their deck. The fact is, though, that speed decks lose to really stupid stuff. It is very possible that a speed deck will lose to 5 walk in rescues to a small band. It is unlikely that any other form of deck would lose to 5 walk in rescues to the same small band. This is because speed decks need every slot for cards of the utmost importance: cards that are useful in almost any scenario. Larger decks tend to have room for specific “counter cards”, that is cards that are only useful in uncommon scenarios. Even if both players draw 75% of their deck, the only card that would have mattered may have been one specific card.
-
Now, on a somewhat different subject, I think there are several issues with balancing speed. First, I have to note, that balance is not intrinsically good. Even if speed had a 50% winrate versus other deck types, it does not mean everything is okay. Take rock paper scissors, for example. That is a game that is completely balanced. Every choice has exactly one advantage and one disadvantageous. But, I think it is fair to say that none of us want Redemption to turn into Rock Paper Scissors. What we want is a game that rewards strong play and deck building while reducing the factor of luck. The PTB have expressed two different methods of doing this: printing hard counters to stop speed and speeding up other possibilities (and more recently a better tactic, but that comes later).
I believe that there are hard principals that we must abide by when weakening speed as we know it. The fix must be obtainable on a consistent basis, it must not revolve around luck, it cannot be a hard counter, it cannot destroy the metagame of other matchups, and it cannot kill speed totally. I will explain why tomorrow morning because it's past midnight here and I'm really tired.
I maintain that neither of the options attempted by the PTB will work, nor will they ever work without totally destroying speed. If one is forced to draw a specific card to stop speed, it simply becomes a race. You try to get that card out before you reach the point of no return and your opponent tries to secure his victory beforehand. It may reduce the winrate of speed, but it does not fix the problem. This just makes the game another incarnate of a coinflip. As to speeding up other possibilities, it just makes Redemption a glorified version of rock, paper, scissors.
The method that the PTB have tried recently, and I feel is most likely for success, is implementing rule changes. The reason this can work is, unlike the other fixes, it has universality. The rule change affects every game. It does not rely on a player specifically drawing certain cards which only encourage speed players to draw faster.
Well,that's about it for now. I really have a lot more I want to add and explain, but like I said, I'm keeping it brief. I'm not even close to done with the discussion on balancing speed (right now what I've posted is pretty useless), but I'm really tired and I'll finish it tomorrow.
Feel free to comment on anything you disagree with.
-
Reserved for possible overflow tomorrow.
-
Reserved for trolling Sauce when he wakes up.
-
With the exception of combos or other silly things, my goal has been to build steal from Gabe decks that, when piloted at a high level, will produce the highest win percentage possible.
FTFY.
Nice thoughts though. Your first reason is definitely the main reason, but the other two are nice additions. Trolling the meta FTW.
-
If I might chime in, I think the reason why speed is so dominant is A) It thrives within the current rules and B) It recieves to many draw cards and not enough counters when new sets came out.
A) Redemption's rules harbor speed in three main ways. First, the draw three at the biginning of the turn. The draw three is really an unprecedented rule allowing a player to move through their deck much faster than they could in any other ccg, combine this with the plethora of drawing cards and there are problems. Second, the no cost system for playing cards (again unprecedented in other major ccg's). This system essentially allows the cards that are "speeded to" to be that much more playable and therefore more effective. And lastly, the no ban policy. This policy elimates an effective way to keep cards balanced and as a result the best decks tend to be the ones that draw into the broken cards.
Allow me to compare Redemptions approach to that of other card games
Magic the Gathering
-60 deck minimum
-1 card per turn
-limited drawing possibilities
- You deck out you lose
Yugioh
-1 card per turn
-40 card minimum
-limited drawing possibilities
-Essentially you lose when you deck out (you lose when you have to draw and cannot)
Pokemon
-1 card per turn
-60 minimum
-limited drawing possibilities
-You lose when you deck out
Lord of the Rings
- You get to reconcile at the end of your turn which mean you draw until your hand gets to 8 and you may also discard a card in this phase. So essentially you draw as much as you play.
- Rule of Four limits drawing at the start of your turn to 4 cards
-limited drawing possibilities otherwise
And in all of these games there is a cost system, a ban system, and limited drawing. Do you see a pattern? It seems like this is the recipe for success.
B) About 21 percent of the cards in the new set (13/60) contain some sort of drawing ability and only 11 percent (7/60) combat speed.
draw cards:
Samuel
Oak
Abigail
Ishmaiah
Isaiah
Seven Years of Plenty
Eygptian Magicians
Jair
Women of Thebez
Babylonian Soldiers
Pharoah's Baker
Pharoah's Cub Bearer
The Dreaming Pharaoh
Counters (7):
Iron Pan
Cherubim
Covenant With Death
Assyrian Siege Arny
Tower of Thebez
Seven Years of Famine
Gibeonite Curse
Keep in mind that with this list I tried to be as inclusive as possible.
In the end I agree with sauce that the best way to fix this would be to make rule changes. I would suggest that the d3 every turn would be limited to d1 in type 1 and to a d2 in type 2.
-
In the end I agree with sauce that the best way to fix this would be to make rule changes. I would suggest that the d3 every turn would be limited to d1 in type 1 and to a d2 in type 2.
What? That would create more luck based games, since if you don't draw evil right away you're screwed. It would make speed even more prevalent to getting at the cards you need.
-
In the end I agree with sauce that the best way to fix this would be to make rule changes. I would suggest that the d3 every turn would be limited to d1 in type 1 and to a d2 in type 2.
What? That would create more luck based games, since if you don't draw evil right away you're screwed. It would make speed even more prevalent to getting at the cards you need.
First of all it would also be harder to draw lost souls so hopefully that would balance out the evil. Second, if you aren't playin enough evil that is really to bad I am tired of the rules catoring to small defenses. And lastly just because speed would become more of a neccessity doesn't mean players would be able to find the cards to fill that gap. Regardless this would be an interesting concept to playtest.
Another rule I thought would be interesting would be to say the first time (that is all game) a hero enters the field of play it cannot be targeted and cannot participate in battle for one turn.
-
In the end I agree with sauce that the best way to fix this would be to make rule changes. I would suggest that the d3 every turn would be limited to d1 in type 1 and to a d2 in type 2.
What? That would create more luck based games, since if you don't draw evil right away you're screwed. It would make speed even more prevalent to getting at the cards you need.
First of all it would also be harder to draw lost souls so hopefully that would balance out the evil. Second, if you aren't playin enough evil that is really to bad I am tired of the rules catoring to small defenses. And lastly just because speed would become more of a neccessity doesn't mean players would be able to find the cards to fill that gap. Regardless this would be an interesting concept to playtest.
Another rule I thought would be interesting would be to say the first time (that is all game) a hero enters the field of play it cannot be targeted and cannot participate in battle for one turn.
So your solution to speed is to make in a necessity.
(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻
-
Reduced start-of-turn drawing would only encourage speed further, not counter it.
-
Encouraging speed will only increase the need to play speed it won't make speed decks any faster, in fact it would slow them down a lot. But I agree that the sudden shift in speed would be boring, perhaps the number of cards you draw every turn should be proportional to the number of cards you have to start with or even the number of cards you have left in your deck deck. That would at least encourage players to build larger decks. Or maybe there should be a rule of four, that is, you can only draw 2 additional cards on offense and two additional cards on defense per turn in addition to the three you draw automatically. Or something to that effect. This way you hurt speed while at the same time don't punish those who don't want to use it.
Or you could go a whole different route and make a rule that puts the minimum deck size at 63 and forces you to balance good and evil. Personally I like this the best as it corrects some other problems redemption has in addition to speed.
-
Or you could go a whole different route and make a rule that puts the minimum deck size at 63 and forces you to balance good and evil. Personally I like this the best as it corrects some other problems redemption has in addition to speed.
I don't like the idea of T1 becoming mini T2. Plus, you'd need new starter decks.
-
You could always have different rules for different catagories. And in theory you could have the 63 card minimum rule without having the balanced part, that way watchfuk servant, zeb... etc would still work. But I guess what I am trying to say I don't see speed being hurt to much unless major changes are implemented. If not that is okay too because there are more creative ways to run speed than there have been in a while, it also gives the game a nice flow. Although I will say if speed is to remain untouched top cut would be really nice.
-
I think the issue with Redemption's speed prevelance eminates from the fact that characters are significantly more important to a deck compared to virtually any other card type (including, arguably, dominants).
the first time (that is all game) a hero enters the field of play it cannot be targeted and cannot participate in battle for one turn.
I think that rule should read "A Hero may not make a rescue attempt the first turn it is in play.". I would highly support that ruling.
-
That's like summoning sickness in magic?
I think I remember when Redemption came out --**clearing cobwebs** :-[ you only drew 1 and were able to have duplicates in your deck (like 4 or was it as many as we wanted?) and the deck size was smaller, more like magic.
But back then, there were hardly draw cards in the game, and it was so slow so they published a rule change about drawing 3 per turn and it sped the game up and made more LS available for rescue.
So I guess my point is that rule changes of this sort have been done in the history of the game.
-
I would for sure support the rule that a hero cannot rescue unless he has been in play for a turn. This would even create strategy of setting aside a hero's characters to reset the clock on them. That'd be awesome.
Good thoughts Sauce, looking forward to the solutions. :D
-
I think I remember when Redemption came out --**clearing cobwebs** :-[ you only drew 1 and were able to have duplicates in your deck (like 4 or was it as many as we wanted?) and the deck size was smaller, more like magic.
But back then, there were hardly draw cards in the game, and it was so slow so they published a rule change about drawing 3 per turn and it sped the game up and made more LS available for rescue.
So I guess my point is that rule changes of this sort have been done in the history of the game.
Is that really true? I don't remember seeing that in the first edition rulebooks, and I did play back in the day of Prophets and so used those rulebooks. Are you sure that wasn't just a misplaying on your part?
-
I would for sure support the rule that a hero cannot rescue unless he has been in play for a turn. This would even create strategy of setting aside a hero's characters to reset the clock on them. That'd be awesome.
Good thoughts Sauce, looking forward to the solutions. :D
Interesting idea. I actually didn't think about set asides... I'm kind of ok with you being able to rescue with a previously set aside hero.
-
You have to know when to hold'em, know when to f...
Er, right, back on topic. In order to play cards, regardless of what meta-type of card it is, you have to draw them. Therefore speed will always be part of every other meta in the game. A speed-capture deck will beat a plain capture deck most of the time. A speed-balanced deck will beat a plain balanced deck most of the time. A speed-speed deck will beat a plain speed deck most of the time. If you have two decks that are exactly the same, and the players are of the same skill level, then luck of the draw will determine the winner. Everyone employs speed to garner an edge, i.e. draw faster than the opponent.
It's obvious that the solution to create cards to counter speed aren't working. It's like the old adage, "You have to spend money to make money." In other words, you have to employ a little speed to get to the cards that counter your opponent's speed. And your opponent is doing the same thing. Ergo, we're back to speed.
If you can't beat them, join them. ;)
Huh??
At least everyone is aware a game rule is needed to circumvent the proliferation of speed. But what is the best rule? What's the one thing that will make any player want to stop drawing? It's when you're opponent is drawing just as fast as you are. We need a game rule that mimics Gifts of the Magi. What that rule is, I don't know. I have ideas. Basically, I think we need to get rid of the hand limit rule, and institute a rule wherein opponents get to draw based on some condition of any other player who is drawing. Maybe something along the lines of "opponents draw a card for every card a player draws when their hand size is greater than 10". Of course, there would be ways around this, but a player would have to work hard to keep their hands small yet still employ speed. One of the ways is to keep your hand below 8, but then that makes the player susceptible to hand discard/decrease.
Thoughts??
-
Thoughts:
1) You would definetly need to have a hand limit otherwise in type two you could do really nasty things. Just do Maharai+Claudia+ET draw for what you need to hit a combo then play love at first sight. You drew your deck and they have 8 cards.
2) Also the draw should be a may imo just to give everyone the most options
3) It might hurt speed, then again there is a draw loop when we both have greater than ten cards and draw so you would have to say "by a special ability". Otherwise it could work though but I don't know if I like the potential it has for more people drawing sure it might balance things but I would rather speed be directly countered. Just my thoughts.
I think we are getting close though.
-
In the end I agree with sauce that the best way to fix this would be to make rule changes. I would suggest that the d3 every turn would be limited to d1 in type 1 and to a d2 in type 2...this would be an interesting concept to playtest.
I agree that this would be interesting to playtest, but it would slow down the game too much.
We need a game rule that mimics Gifts of the Magi.
This could compensate though. We could try a rule of d1 each turn, and then if either player did any drawing by special ability, then the other player "may" draw an equal number of cards.
This would be an interesting idea to playtest in Feb ROOT :)
-
i disagree that a d1 rule would be too slow all the existing draw cards would compensate for it the d3 is just way too much and adding a gifts type rule just lets speed continue to dominate we need harsher controls that slow the game way down and we also need 60 minute games wheteher hosts like it or not its what the game needs thank you.
-
The goal is not to kill speed all together, it's to give players who don't play speed a chance. The "GOTM" type rule would be perfect fort his. Sure you can play speed, just keep in mind that your opponent gets to take advantage of your drawing cards too.
-
I agree with people who feel that a game rule needs to be implemented to punish those who deck out early. What that rule should be I haven't the foggiest, but it seems the best way to go about making speed less advanteous (or at the very least more strategic). Way too often I see people on this forum insist that what they want is "what the game needs" and that everyone needs to get over themselves and see that, and that's just not true. People need to look at the bigger picture and not assume that extreme ideas or opinions are the way to go about "fixing" the game.
Second, if you aren't playin enough evil that is really to bad I am tired of the rules catoring to small defenses.
The rules aren't what cator to small defenses, it's the cards that are released set after set after set. If you want to see defenses become more usable again, the playtesters need to come up with defenses that grow stronger the larger they are.
Or you could go a whole different route and make a rule that puts the minimum deck size at 63 and forces you to balance good and evil. Personally I like this the best as it corrects some other problems redemption has in addition to speed.
Sounds like you should just play T2.
At least everyone is aware a game rule is needed to circumvent the proliferation of speed. But what is the best rule? What's the one thing that will make any player want to stop drawing? It's when you're opponent is drawing just as fast as you are. We need a game rule that mimics Gifts of the Magi. What that rule is, I don't know. I have ideas. Basically, I think we need to get rid of the hand limit rule, and institute a rule wherein opponents get to draw based on some condition of any other player who is drawing. Maybe something along the lines of "opponents draw a card for every card a player draws when their hand size is greater than 10". Of course, there would be ways around this, but a player would have to work hard to keep their hands small yet still employ speed. One of the ways is to keep your hand below 8, but then that makes the player susceptible to hand discard/decrease.
I hate this idea quite a bit. Too much of a giant rule change, and doesn't really stop all that much. If this rule was implemented right now, Genesis would thrive as the strongest offense, due to it's speed while keeping hand size very small. You simply can't just implement giant rules like this, even with a large amount of testing, because you don't know that some obscure card won't suddenly become incredibly broken.
-
To me it sounds like you people have next to no idea how this game's engine works. if you make a d1 rule it screws it over. If you make a deckout rule you risk losing players. TBH the rules are fine and anyone who wants it changed needs to just forget it.
To the playtesters: If you want a slower game make defense stronger and up the time limit. And quit trying to screw the rules engine over.
-
Way too often I see people on this forum insist that what they want is "what the game needs" and that everyone needs to get over themselves and see that, and that's just not true. People need to look at the bigger picture and not assume that extreme ideas or opinions are the way to go about "fixing" the game.
To me it sounds like you people have next to no idea how this game's engine works. if you make a d1 rule it screws it over. If you make a deckout rule you risk losing players. TBH the rules are fine and anyone who wants it changed needs to just forget it.
To the playtesters: If you want a slower game make defense stronger and up the time limit. And quit trying to screw the rules engine over.
I think that saying players - many of whom have been playing longer than you have - have no idea how the game works is unnecessary and pretty rude.
-
I'm tired of being nice. And getting ignored. And do you even know how long I've been playing?
-
I'm tired of being nice. And getting ignored. And do you even know how long I've been playing?
Although niceness is not ALWAYS the best policy, it is USUALLY. And if you get ignored (which you don't by me), then it is NOT because you were nice.
Also, it doesn't matter how long you've been playing. I played my first games in 1995, but it would still be rude of me to accuse people who disagreed with me or were even discussing changing the drawing rules of the game as being people who had "no idea how the game's engine works". That's just unnecessarily insulting, and will lead to people ignoring your posts (which is what you say that you want to avoid).
-
I'm just frustrated to the point to where I almost just don't care what people think anymore. Everyone wants it to change but I just want the rules to be the same. I like the rules and don't understand why people want to turn this game into a MTG clone with about 7 rule differences tops. I like it's freedom of deckbuilding and such and don't understand why other people dislike it. To me this season has the most playable decks yet and everyone wants to shift it to a way where the game is slowed down to the point of being luck based with rules like d1 card per turn. The d3 rule makes it where you go though your deck faster and decreases luck which people do not seem to understand.... this is my thoughts on this issue.
-
I really don't like STAMP's rule. It's just too much of a rule change, and changes the flavor of the game.
I'm just frustrated to the point to where I almost just don't care what people think anymore. Everyone wants it to change but I just want the rules to be the same. I like the rules and don't understand why people want to turn this game into a MTG clone with about 7 rule differences tops. I like it's freedom of deckbuilding and such and don't understand why other people dislike it. To me this season has the most playable decks yet and everyone wants to shift it to a way where the game is slowed down to the point of being luck based with rules like d1 card per turn. The d3 rule makes it where you go though your deck faster and decreases luck which people do not seem to understand.... this is my thoughts on this issue.
We are far from a MTG clone.
-
It's totally an MTG clone...in that they are both CCGs.
-
"You attract more flies with honey than with vinegar."
Red, there are a few members who feel as strongly as you do on the subject, and who have the exact opposite viewpoint you do. Cactus simply cannot please everybody. The reason most people feel that the rules need to be changed to nerf speed is because as it stands right now, playing a fast deck (which essentially limits people to Sam, Genesis, Disciples, TGT, along with a few wildcard decks) is the only viable offense. Now I'm not in support of the vast majority of rule changes that have been suggested, but something does have to be done. If you feel you're being ignored, it's because putting forth the argument, "Stop changing things because anyone who thinks we should change things is stupid" does not win friends and influence people. If you're going to have an opinion, fine, but you need to be able to back it up with a reasoned argument, the way you just did. Getting angry because people disagree with you is something different altogether. What frustrates me is that you have, time and time again, threatened to quit the game if you don't get your way. Now there's one issue that I know would probably cause me to quit the game (Hero Judas), but I also don't use that as a weapon any time someone disagrees with me, and I'd dissuade you from doing the same.
-
There are a few people that have said that D1 would make the game slower. I disagree. It would make the game faster.
Think about it. Instead of players spending a large amount of time on there every turn (which many do), you give them less options to use. They could just do 1 or 2 things, perhaps make a rescue attempt, and then be done. Not so much activating new artifacts every turn and playing charachters and always making rescue attempts, but keeping the pace of the game running smoother. I do believe this hurts speed a little bit, but i dont think we need to make any silly rules about if an opponent draws then you draw... Thats like noone drawing at all! Things like Gifts and RBD would be used in almost every deck, sure, but at least this will hurt speed greatly, and not be too hurtful to other playing styles.
If just making it D1 every turn doesnt fix it, i have absolutely no clue what will.
-
LOL, well if you all read my post thoroughly you'll notice I was brainstorming and throwing out an idea to build from.
Of course, as is the case with these boards, you all took out your first-person-shooter-weapon-of-choice and put a flurry of holes in it.
:rollin:
At least Underwood understood. ;D
-
i dont like FPS's can I have a gun blade instead?
-
I'm actually in support of a few changes such as no doms in the first round but the more drastic you go the more it changes how I play the game and I have played the game in the same style with dominants drawing etc. that it gets to where it feels like a whole new game and that is just something I don't want. My life has changed so much in the past year but this game is something that hasn't changed too drastically, and I don't want it to change too drastically like some people are proposing.
-
I'm actually in support of a few changes such as no doms in the first round but the more drastic you go the more it changes how I play the game and I have played the game in the same style with dominants drawing etc. that it gets to where it feels like a whole new game and that is just something I don't want. My life has changed so much in the past year but this game is something that hasn't changed too drastically, and I don't want it to change too drastically like some people are proposing.
What if the only thing that changed was instead of D3.. D1.
Too drastic?
-
Yes. The luck element would go up and the options would go down. This game is a game where it's better to have options. That rule wouldn't help vs speed too much and actually widen the gap between speed and everything else.
-
There are a few people that have said that D1 would make the game slower. I disagree. It would make the game faster.
Think about it. Instead of players spending a large amount of time on there every turn (which many do), you give them less options to use. They could just do 1 or 2 things, perhaps make a rescue attempt, and then be done. Not so much activating new artifacts every turn and playing charachters and always making rescue attempts, but keeping the pace of the game running smoother. I do believe this hurts speed a little bit, but i dont think we need to make any silly rules about if an opponent draws then you draw... Thats like noone drawing at all! Things like Gifts and RBD would be used in almost every deck, sure, but at least this will hurt speed greatly, and not be too hurtful to other playing styles.
If just making it D1 every turn doesnt fix it, i have absolutely no clue what will.
I think you might be a bit confused, unless I'm misreading what you're saying. When people talk about speed, we're not referring to the actual time it takes to play a game. Rather, we're talking about how many cards are being taken out of a deck (not including discards) over the course of X amount of turns.
I'm actually in support of a few changes such as no doms in the first round but the more drastic you go the more it changes how I play the game and I have played the game in the same style with dominants drawing etc. that it gets to where it feels like a whole new game and that is just something I don't want. My life has changed so much in the past year but this game is something that hasn't changed too drastically, and I don't want it to change too drastically like some people are proposing.
The problem is that's not a good argument. "I don't want the game to change because I don't want it to" simply isn't a strong argument when you have more people saying "I do want the game to change because I want it to".
-
LOL, well if you all read my post thoroughly you'll notice I was brainstorming and throwing out an idea to build from.
Of course, as is the case with these boards, you all took out your first-person-shooter-weapon-of-choice and put a flurry of holes in it.
:rollin:
At least Underwood understood. ;D
Tac Nuke. Who needs to aim? Seriously, I do appreciate the brainstorm, but that particular idea doesn't hold water in my opinion.
-
I understand, I'm saying its like killing two stones with one bird. Make the game smoother and drastically hurt Speed.
-
LOL, well if you all read my post thoroughly you'll notice I was brainstorming and throwing out an idea to build from.
Of course, as is the case with these boards, you all took out your first-person-shooter-weapon-of-choice and put a flurry of holes in it.
:rollin:
At least Underwood understood. ;D
Tac Nuke. Who needs to aim? Seriously, I do appreciate the brainstorm, but that particular idea doesn't hold water in my opinion.
Point taken. Something full of holes indeed doesn't hold water.
But the fact remains: what's the one thing that will make any player want to stop drawing? It's when you're opponent is drawing just as fast as you are.
There are probably several ways to achieve the end result, notwithstanding my bullet-laden proposition. ;)
-
LOL, well if you all read my post thoroughly you'll notice I was brainstorming and throwing out an idea to build from.
Of course, as is the case with these boards, you all took out your first-person-shooter-weapon-of-choice and put a flurry of holes in it.
:rollin:
At least Underwood understood. ;D
Tac Nuke. Who needs to aim? Seriously, I do appreciate the brainstorm, but that particular idea doesn't hold water in my opinion.
Point taken. Something full of holes indeed doesn't hold water.
But the fact remains: what's the one thing that will make any player want to stop drawing? It's when you're opponent is drawing just as fast as you are.
There are probably several ways to achieve the end result, notwithstanding my bullet-laden proposition. ;)
I disagree.
The object is not to MAKE people to not want to draw cards...
Its to make drawing cards not so effective.
-
I disagree with the way you disagreed. I think the best way to go about this is to put a player who has decked out as a disadvantage.
-
I disagree.
The object is not to MAKE people to not want to draw cards...
Its to make drawing cards not so effective.
Easy. Cards drawn due to a special ability gain the ability of NOT being able to activate their special ability.
{Waves defribillator paddles in the air} That'll kill it. ;)
-
At least Underwood understood. ;D
They don't rhyme for nothin' :)
-
I disagree.
The object is not to MAKE people to not want to draw cards...
Its to make drawing cards not so effective.
Easy. Cards drawn due to a special ability gain the ability of NOT being able to activate their special ability.
{Waves defribillator paddles in the air} That'll kill it. ;)
Agreed.
Whats so bad about losing if you deck out?
I'm sure the idea has had to have been brought up before.
-
The cards that have come out would make that ridiculous. Luke would become S tier for instance, so would evil gold. Losing because of decking out is too extreme.
-
The issue with the "Gifts of the Magi" rule is that is that it reduces the game to who gets their best cards first. Making the game faster in anyway is NOT the answer to the problem. If the rule proposed can in any way help you draw cards, it will NOT work. That's like printing more money to solve Inflation (it doesn't work, for those who don't know anything about Economics).
I still maintain that the biggest issue with speed is based on the fact that Characters are so much more important than any other card type. Because you NEED characters, you have to have speed elements to draw characters. It's the most efficient way to reduce the luck of the draw. Additionally, because you NEED characters, you tend to push as many characters into your deck as you can. This leads to the rampant use of unsupported Characters, making cards such as Gomer/Uzzah/FBTNCharacters, etc much more widely used than would normally be expected. This has been a problem since Tim Maly first constructed his CBN (or whatever you want to call it) deck. Read his comments about it on his website. They are telling about how important characters are in this game.
Combined with the lack of any sort of power check on characters, we are at a point in the game where we can go a couple different ways. I think we should enact this rule:
"A hero may not start a rescue attempt unless he/she was in play at the end of the owner's previous turn."
This rule helps combat speed in a number of ways:
1. First Turn superheroes like Strong Angel get a nerfing. No more 3 walk in rescues, SoG, NJ.
2. Pentecost and First Fruits begin to have actual costs when played at the end of your turn. No more "free" drawing.
3. Evil is left intact and able to block at any point.
4. Banding to heroes in hand or deck is still doable.
I think this rule would solve a lot of the 5 minute games that are most commonly complained about while not totally ruining other important aspects of the game. It would increase strategy by forcing attackers to plan ahead, but also give defenders a little hint on what might be coming at them in the future.
-
The cards that have come out would make that ridiculous. Luke would become S tier for instance, so would evil gold. Losing because of decking out is too extreme.
Once again, I disagree.
Its a strategy.
Obviously, if everyone is playing luke and making the opponent deck out get too OP, then do something about it. But still, there can even be cards made in the future that can help against it. For intance, make an artifact that makes it that no opponent can make you draw cards or something...
We can't be afraid to make rules because there, and i stress this, MIGHT be a strategy that could be used because of the rules change to make the rule change. Speed needs to be dealt with. This is literally the only way i see of making people not want to deck out.
I would much rather have to deal with that than Speed. Please, give me my cards, help me get to SoG quicker. More than welcome to.
-
The cards that have come out would make that ridiculous. Luke would become S tier for instance, so would evil gold. Losing because of decking out is too extreme.
Once again, I disagree.
Its a strategy.
Obviously, if everyone is playing luke and making the opponent deck out get too OP, then do something about it. But still, there can even be cards made in the future that can help against it. For intance, make an artifact that makes it that no opponent can make you draw cards or something...
We can't be afraid to make rules because there, and i stress this, MIGHT be a strategy that could be used because of the rules change to make the rule change. Speed needs to be dealt with. This is literally the only way i see of making people not want to deck out.
I would much rather have to deal with that than Speed. Please, give me my cards, help me get to SoG quicker. More than welcome to.
That's the thing though, there's no "might" there. Gold (both good and evil) would be able to win games based entirely on forcing your opponent to draw. Games with a "you deck out you lose" premise work because of how little drawing is going on there. Redemption is entirely different. I think Alex's suggestion is the best thus far, and should be tested in ROOT in Feb.
-
Luke would become S tier for instance, so would evil gold. Losing because of decking out is too extreme.
I agree that losing because of decking out is too extreme. However, I don't get it when people say that Luke/Egyptians would become S-tier.
Luke is a lame offense, and Egyptians are a lame defense other than being fast. The combination of the two is a recipe for disaster. Sure you could make me deck out if the game lasted long enough. But I'll break through your defense 5 times before that happens. And your offense won't be going anywhere. :)
"A hero may not start a rescue attempt unless he/she was in play at the end of the owner's previous turn."
But if heroes had to wait a turn before attacking, then wouldn't that make people want to speed up even more to get their heroes out faster, so that they could attack the next turn?
-
I like Alex's suggestion. What's the link to Maly's website?
"A hero may not start a rescue attempt unless he/she was in play at the end of the owner's previous turn."
But if heroes had to wait a turn before attacking, then wouldn't that make people want to speed up even more to get their heroes out faster, so that they could attack the next turn?
I don't think that'll happen. The intent was to stop first turn TSA's and nerf the Priests setasides a bit.
-
Luke would become S tier for instance, so would evil gold. Losing because of decking out is too extreme.
I agree that losing because of decking out is too extreme. However, I don't get it when people say that Luke/Egyptians would become S-tier.
Luke is a lame offense, and Egyptians are a lame defense other than being fast. The combination of the two is a recipe for disaster. Sure you could make me deck out if the game lasted long enough. But I'll break through your defense 5 times before that happens. And your offense won't be going anywhere. :)
"A hero may not start a rescue attempt unless he/she was in play at the end of the owner's previous turn."
But if heroes had to wait a turn before attacking, then wouldn't that make people want to speed up even more to get their heroes out faster, so that they could attack the next turn?
If you want to speed through your deck, go for it. But, you also have to drop your hand. I don't know about you, but I hardly ever want to drop my hand. I want to play close to the cuff. Also, if I run with a standard split (about a 1:1 ratio on enhancement/character) I often will have to discard enhancements due to speeding. I could also suffer from free rescues because if I speed through my deck, I probably don't have much defense, so I can't really block, but I keep bringing my souls out. If I need to get one specific hero (say, Joseph in Genesis deck), I still have to wait a turn to use him to RA allowing the other player another turn to change the tide (and be able to do something about Joseph, since I have to sit him in my territory).
-
I'm just spit-balling here, but what about a lower hand limit? Say, 12. And, instead of just not drawing, any cards you draw over 12 get discarded?
-
The issue with the "Gifts of the Magi" rule is that is that it reduces the game to who gets their best cards first.
This is exactly what would happen if there were no drawing special abilities in the first place.
Making the game faster in anyway is NOT the answer to the problem.
It is if the game becomes more balanced between metas. Who cares how fast a game is if there's balance?
I'm just spit-balling here, but what about a lower hand limit? Say, 12. And, instead of just not drawing, any cards you draw over 12 get discarded?
This idea has some merit.
-
If I need to get one specific hero (say, Joseph in Genesis deck)
That brings up an important question. If I have Rachael out for a turn and then rescue with her to switch for Joseph in my deck or discard pile, then what happens. I now have a hero in battle who has NOT been in play for a turn? Does that change it into a battle challenge, or does it stay a rescue attempt, since he's taking the place of Rachael who was out for a turn?
-
The issue with the "Gifts of the Magi" rule is that is that it reduces the game to who gets their best cards first.
This is exactly what would happen if there were no drawing special abilities in the first place.
Making the game faster in anyway is NOT the answer to the problem.
It is if the game becomes more balanced between metas. Who cares how fast a game is if there's balance?
I'm just spit-balling here, but what about a lower hand limit? Say, 12. And, instead of just not drawing, any cards you draw over 12 get discarded?
This idea has some merit.
Everyone cares about how fast the meta is. If you notice, no one calls for balance via ruling, they call for nerfing speed via ruling. They don't want to deal with balance until later.
If I need to get one specific hero (say, Joseph in Genesis deck)
That brings up an important question. If I have Rachael out for a turn and then rescue with her to switch for Joseph in my deck or discard pile, then what happens. I now have a hero in battle who has NOT been in play for a turn? Does that change it into a battle challenge, or does it stay a rescue attempt, since he's taking the place of Rachael who was out for a turn?
That's why I made the edit (I think I edited it) that the hero who starts the battle must have been in play at the end of your last turn. It would still allow the above scenario to be an RA since Rachel started the battle.
-
Everyone cares about how fast the meta is. If you notice, no one calls for balance via ruling, they call for nerfing speed via ruling. They don't want to deal with balance until later.
Well I'M calling for nerfing speed via ruling BECAUSE it is out of balance. It may be implicit, but I'm calling for balance nonetheless.
-
Everyone cares about how fast the meta is. If you notice, no one calls for balance via ruling, they call for nerfing speed via ruling. They don't want to deal with balance until later.
Well I'M calling for nerfing speed via ruling BECAUSE it is out of balance. It may be implicit, but I'm calling for balance nonetheless.
The general assumption is that, if speed gets nerfed, more people will play defense.
-
I'm just spit-balling here, but what about a lower hand limit? Say, 12. And, instead of just not drawing, any cards you draw over 12 get discarded?
Given the number of "may" and "up to" SA's, the discard wouldn't be that much of a penalty. And Genesis would still be good.
-
Everyone cares about how fast the meta is. If you notice, no one calls for balance via ruling, they call for nerfing speed via ruling. They don't want to deal with balance until later.
Well I'M calling for nerfing speed via ruling BECAUSE it is out of balance. It may be implicit, but I'm calling for balance nonetheless.
You want to nerf speed by letting every deck be speed. That doesn't make sense. I don't care what you are drawing, as long as I end up drawing one card more.
-
Everyone cares about how fast the meta is. If you notice, no one calls for balance via ruling, they call for nerfing speed via ruling. They don't want to deal with balance until later.
Well I'M calling for nerfing speed via ruling BECAUSE it is out of balance. It may be implicit, but I'm calling for balance nonetheless.
You want to nerf speed by letting every deck be speed. That doesn't make sense. I don't care what you are drawing, as long as I end up drawing one card more.
I'm not suggesting every deck be speed. If you read closer, I am explaining why speed exists, which is exactly as you say, "I don't care what you are drawing, as long as I end up drawing one card more."
What I am saying is that if a player is using speed in whatever deck they're using, AND their opponent is drawing just as much, suddenly the speed part of their deck isn't really giving them an advantage anymore. It's back to luck of draw. In that case, players will be more inclined to remove speed parts from their deck and focus on deck cohesiveness.
-
Cant we all just agree not to play speed? :D
-
Cant we all just agree not to play speed? :D
Well I play the slowest meta around. That way my feeble brain can keep up. ;D
-
Cant we all just agree not to play speed? :D
Even if you could convince everyone to not play speed (not happening), it would be much more difficult to define speed. Are we not allowed to use draw abilities? What about search? The big problem would be defining speed.
-
Everyone cares about how fast the meta is. If you notice, no one calls for balance via ruling, they call for nerfing speed via ruling. They don't want to deal with balance until later.
Well I'M calling for nerfing speed via ruling BECAUSE it is out of balance. It may be implicit, but I'm calling for balance nonetheless.
You want to nerf speed by letting every deck be speed. That doesn't make sense. I don't care what you are drawing, as long as I end up drawing one card more.
I'm not suggesting every deck be speed. If you read closer, I am explaining why speed exists, which is exactly as you say, "I don't care what you are drawing, as long as I end up drawing one card more."
How is a Gifts of the Magi rule not making every deck speed?
What I am saying is that if a player is using speed in whatever deck they're using, AND their opponent is drawing just as much, suddenly the speed part of their deck isn't really giving them an advantage anymore. It's back to luck of draw. In that case, players will be more inclined to remove speed parts from their deck and focus on deck cohesiveness.
How is this not making every deck speed?
-
How is a Gifts of the Magi rule not making every deck speed?
This would be the OPPOSITE of making every deck speed. I could build a deck without a single draw card, and my deck would still be just as fast as my fastest opponent. All of their draw cards would work for both of us, and all of my cards would only work for me. Effectively playing against a speed deck would give me a card advantage overall in my deck.
I like this more and more :)
-
But then no one would play speed and.....oh.
Games would be boring.
-
How is a Gifts of the Magi rule not making every deck speed?
This would be the OPPOSITE of making every deck speed. I could build a deck without a single draw card, and my deck would still be just as fast as my fastest opponent. All of their draw cards would work for both of us, and all of my cards would only work for me. Effectively playing against a speed deck would give me a card advantage overall in my deck.
I like this more and more :)
The result is speeding through your deck, I think that is what he means.
-
But then no one would play speed and.....oh.
Games would be boring.
Only for those generations who have been raised on nothing but instant gratification in their lives. ;)
-
Are you calling me (switches tab to check Facebook) some kid who can't (skips song on Pandora) fo(cat jumps on lap)cus?
-
How is a Gifts of the Magi rule not making every deck speed?
This would be the OPPOSITE of making every deck speed. I could build a deck without a single draw card, and my deck would still be just as fast as my fastest opponent. All of their draw cards would work for both of us, and all of my cards would only work for me. Effectively playing against a speed deck would give me a card advantage overall in my deck.
I like this more and more :)
Why? What good does it do the game? Think about speed decks. The great majority of the cards in a speed deck can be played onto the field. I can just drop my hand and still draw just fine the majority of the time. This rule would affect the small percentage of games that pit double speed decks that both draw well and turn them into true 5 minute matches every time.
That rule would either kill speed completely (which would be TERRIBLE for the game) or it would do nothing (which isn't want we want). I would honestly consider not playing the game if that rule was brought into effect if it plays out how I imagine it will.
We need to stop trying to get rid of the symptoms (speed) and deal with the root cause (importance of characters to Redemption in combo with a lack of power check). Until that's dealt with, Speed will always be the best option. Once it's dealt with, it will still be good, but it won't be the clear best.
-
Alex, I truly appreciate your input. Please don't stop. It helps this whole discussion to weed out ideas that have some potential versus ones that would otherwise open Pandora's box (only contains ominous music, Kittens ;) ).
Would a rule that balances the drawing kill speed completely? It might. Some would like this and some would not. I've never thought of speed as a separate meta anyway. You can't win a game with just speed cards. All "speed" decks have the minimum amount of "power" cards that will enable the player to win. Speed is simply adding the cards that help you get the power cards more quickly than your opponent. A rule that mimics Gifts of the Magi would generally cause more players to use searches and exchanges rather than draw. Some players would continue to add the ITB+D3+play next cards but start declining the draw part, using only the ITB+play next part.
As to your point regarding the lack of power checks balancing the importance of characters in the game, I feel that no matter how well the game is balanced with ALL types of cards, players will still add more speed cards to their decks to gain the upper hand.
Finally, I think I have seen enough backlash regarding speed decks that most players do not prefer that speed be the best option in the game, as proposed by you. I think most players succumb to the decision to making their decks faster to be competitive. If there was a balance in drawing I think deck-building would be easier and more creative. Players wouldn't have to decide to take out quality cards from their deck to be replaced with speed cards in order to be 50, 56 or 63 cards. Shoot, some speed cards have become staples in most metas. Personally, I dislike the fact that a 50-card deck will have 20-30% speed cards in addition to the 20% dominants. To me, THAT'S boring.
-
Would a rule that balances the drawing kill speed completely? It might. Some would like this and some would not. I've never thought of speed as a separate meta anyway. You can't win a game with just speed cards. All "speed" decks have the minimum amount of "power" cards that will enable the player to win. Speed is simply adding the cards that help you get the power cards more quickly than your opponent. A rule that mimics Gifts of the Magi would generally cause more players to use searches and exchanges rather than draw. Some players would continue to add the ITB+D3+play next cards but start declining the draw part, using only the ITB+play next part.
I agree with this sentiment overall, but it's also another reason I don't like the GOTM rule. Speed would attack to become Genesis. Some people would continue to use heavy drawing. You could also use CtB to force your opponent to draw past 10 (Sabbath Breaker or Damsel come to mind) so you can draw. I just don't think allow more speed options would fix speed.
As to your point regarding the lack of power checks balancing the importance of characters in the game, I feel that no matter how well the game is balanced with ALL types of cards, players will still add more speed cards to their decks to gain the upper hand.
I agree, which is why we need to power check the cards that they get with that speed so that drawing isn't so inherently powerful.
Finally, I think I have seen enough backlash regarding speed decks that most players do not prefer that speed be the best option in the game, as proposed by you. I think most players succumb to the decision to making their decks faster to be competitive. If there was a balance in drawing I think deck-building would be easier and more creative. Players wouldn't have to decide to take out quality cards from their deck to be replaced with speed cards in order to be 50, 56 or 63 cards. Shoot, some speed cards have become staples in most metas. Personally, I dislike the fact that a 50-card deck will have 20-30% speed cards in addition to the 20% dominants. To me, THAT'S boring.
I didn't say we wanted speed to be the best option, I just said it was. I agree that most mid-tier players who play speed don't care for speed, but they just want to win. I think the top-tier players have some responsability in the current speed surge because it's all we play. With Maly being largely not around in recent years online, all the top contributing players nationally for the most part play speed, so it's no wonder that lots of average to good players play speed.
I don't want deck-building to be easier. I want deck-building to be harder. Deck-building should be painful when you cut the final few cards because you think that all of them have a case to be in your deck. I don't want deck-building to be so easy a caveman could do it.
I don't think speed decks have 20%-30% cards either. That'd be 10-15 cards. That's wildly high, and largely depends on how you define speed. Is Susanna a speed card? What about Reach or Words? I personally would only call speed cards those cards that only provide drawing (like Pentecost or First Fruits). Reach and Words will always be used because they are good cards without the draw. The draw just pushes them over the top. I'd prefer to reach a world were using stuff like Pentecost and First Fruits has more of a cost and makes the user think more (which, again, selfless promotion, I think my rule proposal would).
-
We need to stop trying to get rid of the symptoms (speed) and deal with the root cause (importance of characters to Redemption in combo with a lack of power check). Until that's dealt with, Speed will always be the best option. Once it's dealt with, it will still be good, but it won't be the clear best.
Another root cause is dominants that is why I like dominant cap, though I thought it was to lenient, it didn't really hurt speed much. I would like to see something like a 4-5 dom max on 7 souls and then increments of 1 going forward. Thoughts?
-
We need to stop trying to get rid of the symptoms (speed) and deal with the root cause (importance of characters to Redemption in combo with a lack of power check). Until that's dealt with, Speed will always be the best option. Once it's dealt with, it will still be good, but it won't be the clear best.
Another root cause is dominants that is why I like dominant cap, though I thought it was to lenient, it didn't really hurt speed much. I would like to see something like a 4-5 dom max on 7 souls and then increments of 1 going forward. Thoughts?
I like dom cap. It affects speed in two ways: some doms are speed cards and players use speed cards to get doms.
I'm willing to be flexible so instead of a flat cap (which I would prefer) how about one dominant for every 10 cards in a deck?
50-59 = 5 doms
60-69 = 6 doms
etc.
-
The discussion was one dominant for every Lost Soul, not counting Hopper. I think anything more than that is a bit extreme.
-
I agree, which is why we need to power check the cards that they get with that speed so that drawing isn't so inherently powerful.
Here's the problem with your logic. The problem isn't that characters are powerful. If they weren't then something else would be. And if nothing was, then all the cards would stink, and no one would play the game.
So the solution isn't to nerf all the characters or all the cards, but just to slow down how fast people get to those powerful cards.
-
1 per ten would get my vote. 1 per LS would also get my vote, but only if 1 per ten were off the table.
-
I agree, which is why we need to power check the cards that they get with that speed so that drawing isn't so inherently powerful.
Here's the problem with your logic. The problem isn't that characters are powerful. If they weren't then something else would be. And if nothing was, then all the cards would stink, and no one would play the game.
So the solution isn't to nerf all the characters or all the cards, but just to slow down how fast people get to those powerful cards.
That's circular logic though, which has been discussed. Without making a drastic change to the rules, the only way to slow down speed decks is to print anti-speed cards. Well how can I ensure I'm going to get that anti-speed card before my opponent sets up? Well, I'd better just throw in Pentecost just to be safe. There needs to be a penalty for decking out.
-
That's circular logic though, which has been discussed. Without making a drastic change to the rules, the only way to slow down speed decks is to print anti-speed cards. Well how can I ensure I'm going to get that anti-speed card before my opponent sets up? Well, I'd better just throw in Pentecost just to be safe. There needs to be a penalty for decking out.
I'm not sure why you're disagreeing with me. We all agree with you that the solution has to be rule change. The question Alex and I are debating is whether the rule change should be one that:
- hurts the cards that you draw so that they are less powerful and therefore, less worth drawing
- or hurts the drawing itself so that players are less likely to draw
A decking out rule, or a Gifts of the Magi rule are both ideas towards the 2nd option (which I lean toward). Alex leans towards the 1st option.
-
My bad. Generally when I see people say things along the lines of, "the solution isn't to nerf all the characters or all the cards, but just to slow down how fast people get to those powerful cards" it's generally referring to just printing anti-speed cards.
-
Would a rule that balances the drawing kill speed completely? It might. Some would like this and some would not. I've never thought of speed as a separate meta anyway. You can't win a game with just speed cards. All "speed" decks have the minimum amount of "power" cards that will enable the player to win. Speed is simply adding the cards that help you get the power cards more quickly than your opponent. A rule that mimics Gifts of the Magi would generally cause more players to use searches and exchanges rather than draw. Some players would continue to add the ITB+D3+play next cards but start declining the draw part, using only the ITB+play next part.
I agree with this sentiment overall, but it's also another reason I don't like the GOTM rule. Speed would attack to become Genesis. Some people would continue to use heavy drawing. You could also use CtB to force your opponent to draw past 10 (Sabbath Breaker or Damsel come to mind) so you can draw. I just don't think allow more speed options would fix speed.
As to your point regarding the lack of power checks balancing the importance of characters in the game, I feel that no matter how well the game is balanced with ALL types of cards, players will still add more speed cards to their decks to gain the upper hand.
I agree, which is why we need to power check the cards that they get with that speed so that drawing isn't so inherently powerful.
Finally, I think I have seen enough backlash regarding speed decks that most players do not prefer that speed be the best option in the game, as proposed by you. I think most players succumb to the decision to making their decks faster to be competitive. If there was a balance in drawing I think deck-building would be easier and more creative. Players wouldn't have to decide to take out quality cards from their deck to be replaced with speed cards in order to be 50, 56 or 63 cards. Shoot, some speed cards have become staples in most metas. Personally, I dislike the fact that a 50-card deck will have 20-30% speed cards in addition to the 20% dominants. To me, THAT'S boring.
I didn't say we wanted speed to be the best option, I just said it was. I agree that most mid-tier players who play speed don't care for speed, but they just want to win. I think the top-tier players have some responsability in the current speed surge because it's all we play. With Maly being largely not around in recent years online, all the top contributing players nationally for the most part play speed, so it's no wonder that lots of average to good players play speed.
I don't want deck-building to be easier. I want deck-building to be harder. Deck-building should be painful when you cut the final few cards because you think that all of them have a case to be in your deck. I don't want deck-building to be so easy a caveman could do it.
I don't think speed decks have 20%-30% cards either. That'd be 10-15 cards. That's wildly high, and largely depends on how you define speed. Is Susanna a speed card? What about Reach or Words? I personally would only call speed cards those cards that only provide drawing (like Pentecost or First Fruits). Reach and Words will always be used because they are good cards without the draw. The draw just pushes them over the top. I'd prefer to reach a world were using stuff like Pentecost and First Fruits has more of a cost and makes the user think more (which, again, selfless promotion, I think my rule proposal would).
I don't know about you, but as a general rule, I agonize over which cards go into my speed deck just the same as you do with a balanced deck. My TGT deck last year had about 4 cards on a list that I really, really wanted to fit in, but simply couldn't. This year that list has grown to about 7 for the TGT deck, and I have a secondary speed deck with a list as long as I am tall, I'm actually so up in the air with that deck that what I play from week to week in it changes since every card makes an argument for a spot.
It's extremely easy to build a speed deck - I won't argue that. I would argue that its extremely hard to build a speed deck that beats other speed decks consistently, as well as beating everything else
-
I think I remember when Redemption came out --**clearing cobwebs** :-[ you only drew 1 and were able to have duplicates in your deck (like 4 or was it as many as we wanted?) and the deck size was smaller, more like magic.
But back then, there were hardly draw cards in the game, and it was so slow so they published a rule change about drawing 3 per turn and it sped the game up and made more LS available for rescue.
So I guess my point is that rule changes of this sort have been done in the history of the game.
Is that really true? I don't remember seeing that in the first edition rulebooks, and I did play back in the day of Prophets and so used those rulebooks. Are you sure that wasn't just a misplaying on your part?
I remember when it 1st came out with the blue packs and the game seemed more like MTG (which I was more familiar with at the time) with those 1st deckbuilding rules. I remember getting mailed a letter with extra rule changes and those "new" deckbuilding changes were noted. I believe I got it mailed to me from Cactus since I was bombarding Cactus with mail from members of my family in order to get more promos (like burial....which was a real gamechanger in those days!! :o).
Of course I could be wrong...my wife tells me about things I forget all the time...but was that on purpose?!?! :angel:
Maybe another "oldie" can remember this too so I don't think I'm completely losing it??! :P
-
I don't know about you, but as a general rule, I agonize over which cards go into my speed deck just the same as you do with a balanced deck. My TGT deck last year had about 4 cards on a list that I really, really wanted to fit in, but simply couldn't. This year that list has grown to about 7 for the TGT deck, and I have a secondary speed deck with a list as long as I am tall, I'm actually so up in the air with that deck that what I play from week to week in it changes since every card makes an argument for a spot.
It's extremely easy to build a speed deck - I won't argue that. I would argue that its extremely hard to build a speed deck that beats other speed decks consistently, as well as beating everything else
I definately agree. I was responding to Stamp's statement that he felt his rule would make deckbuilding easier becasue you don't feel it necessary to put in speed cards at power cards expense.
I agree, which is why we need to power check the cards that they get with that speed so that drawing isn't so inherently powerful.
Here's the problem with your logic. The problem isn't that characters are powerful. If they weren't then something else would be. And if nothing was, then all the cards would stink, and no one would play the game.
So the solution isn't to nerf all the characters or all the cards, but just to slow down how fast people get to those powerful cards.
The problem with your logic is that the entire game flows through characters. It's not like Characters are quarterbacks of your team. Heroes are the entire offense (minus the big two, which get hurt a little with the dom cap that has large support). There is no other card in the game that can be as good unless characters are good. Hurting characters hurts everything.
-
The only way to fix this is to make players not want to draw so many cards...
If you deck out you lose.
You definitely could still play speed, heck, my friend has a 100 card T1.5 speed deck. It works.
This in turn will also cause games to not last as long.
Yes, this will kill all of your silly "50 card speed decks", but at least this is the quickest, simplist, and most effective way to fix the problem.
Every other card game i know of does this... Obviously theres a good reason for it.
-
Well one thing's for certain: there really doesn't need to be any more cards printed with a draw ability. There are plenty to choose from now and will probably last the life of the game.
-
I agree. The best to stop speed (though it would take a while) would be to simply not print cards with draw abilities. That said though, since the next set is a couple starter decks, there will undoubtedly be draw abilities.
-
I agree. The best to stop speed (though it would take a while) would be to simply not print cards with draw abilities. That said though, since the next set is a couple starter decks, there will undoubtedly be draw abilities.
*perks up head* Set rotation, anyone? Next year's the perfect time to start!
-
What I've always wondered is why speed is a bad thing anyways.
-
I've been playing for 1.5 years, and seen all of two three-turn wins. That doesn't make it "every game"
-
Matt, that is entirely uncalled for. Red prefers the meta as it is, just because you disagree with him doesn't make him wrong, nor does it make you wrong. You simply have two different styles of play.
-
I remember when it 1st came out with the blue packs and the game seemed more like MTG (which I was more familiar with at the time) with those 1st deckbuilding rules. I remember getting mailed a letter with extra rule changes and those "new" deckbuilding changes were noted. I believe I got it mailed to me from Cactus since I was bombarding Cactus with mail from members of my family in order to get more promos (like burial....which was a real gamechanger in those days!! :o).
Of course I could be wrong...my wife tells me about things I forget all the time...but was that on purpose?!?! :angel:
Maybe another "oldie" can remember this too so I don't think I'm completely losing it??! :P
Wow, I've never heard of that before! I know this is not at all what the rest of the thread was talking about, but that's cool news to me!
-
I remember when it 1st came out with the blue packs and the game seemed more like MTG (which I was more familiar with at the time) with those 1st deckbuilding rules. I remember getting mailed a letter with extra rule changes and those "new" deckbuilding changes were noted. I believe I got it mailed to me from Cactus since I was bombarding Cactus with mail from members of my family in order to get more promos (like burial....which was a real gamechanger in those days!! :o).
Of course I could be wrong...my wife tells me about things I forget all the time...but was that on purpose?!?! :angel:
Maybe another "oldie" can remember this too so I don't think I'm completely losing it??! :P
Wow, I've never heard of that before! I know this is not at all what the rest of the thread was talking about, but that's cool news to me!
Which part?
- That people used to mail letters?
- That slug was stalking Cactus?
- That Burial was a game-changer?
- That husbands tend to forget things?
;D
-
What I've always wondered is why speed is a bad thing anyways.
(Why speed is a problem)
-
What I've always wondered is why speed is a bad thing anyways.
Because sometimes you just need to stop and smell the...
(https://www.smareps.com/Merchant2/graphics/00000011/Rose%20Bowl%20ButtonFINAL.jpg)
-
If you have a dom cap can you have a draw cap? Just thought I'd throw it out there to see if it floats ;D
-
What I've always wondered is why speed is a bad thing anyways.
Because sometimes you just need to stop and smell the...
(https://www.smareps.com/Merchant2/graphics/00000011/Rose%20Bowl%20ButtonFINAL.jpg)
USC is still under a bowl ban the rose bowl is irrelevant.
-
If you have a dom cap can you have a draw cap? Just thought I'd throw it out there to see if it floats ;D
We do, in the sense that the hand limit is 16. I've seen plenty of times where a person draws enough on defense and they don't get their D3 on their turn. ::)