Cactus Game Design Message Boards

I can't go either way because I have a wedding the same weekend, but Gabe is going to have to have something good to make it worthwhile.

My guess is playtester status or a goat

Even people who decry the more competitive aspects of Redemption like YMT tend to also enjoy football.

Understand, though, that I have the same problems with both. The higher the stakes, the more lengths that people will go to win, even if it means cheating. As a Patriots fan, I have to accept the fact that my team was willing to bend/break the rules to help them win, not only this year (Deflategate), but in the past (Spygate). Now I do not want to derail this thread, since there is already a football thread, but my point is that I have already seen this mentality at my higher level Redemption tournaments. The "win at all costs" mentality is fueled by competition for prizes. The higher the prize, the farther people are willing to push their integrity.

The problem, of course, is that the people who push the limits do not see themselves as pushing their integrity. They usually say, "I don't see anything wrong with what I did," and will then defend their actions vigorously. Meanwhile, the outside world just looks at them with disdain. I just don't feel that is how the outside world should view Redemption players. We should be different. That is my only take.

Realize that my view is based off vey bad experiences, and off the specific feedback I have gotten from my former players and their parents. Also understand that my player base tends to be very young. So my opinion is based off the atmosphere I wish to create at my tournaments. Could the National Tournament be a completely different atmosphere? Sure. But that won't ever include me anyway (by my choice), so my opinion does not need to be factored into Natz thinking.

On replying to the lack of making a meta. To my understanding a meta is a deck concept or combo that is so good that it should be put in every deck and 90% of the time that concept and or combo of cards works flawlessly and either makes you win or helps you alot in winning. But the thing about redemption is that depending on the opponent's play style, draw, dominants, lost souls, combos, and all abilities, No one deck can truly always beat or have a high win ratio against every deck. The reason for this is play style. Me personally I can play philistines better than anyone I know yet people consider them bad. On the same hand I can wield a pharisee defense very well as well but because of the way I play and create my offenses out of instinct often fit the Phillies better! And if you put a magician defense in my deck, I will know how to play it but I can never ever win with it.

So my point is that the reason for a lack of meta may be more because of the specific way the game is created rather than a lack of effort. How can you create a meta when in reality is that most of the time its the unique of the wall decks that work? A good example of this is the New York Nationals.

Thanks, KingLeo

On replying to the lack of making a meta. To my understanding a meta is a deck concept or combo that is so good that it should be put in every deck and 90% of the time that concept and or combo of cards works flawlessly and either makes you win or helps you alot in winning.

But the thing about redemption is that depending on the opponent's play style, draw, dominants, lost souls, combos, and all abilities, No one deck can truly always beat or have a high win ratio against every deck. The reason for this is play style. Me personally I can play philistines better than anyone I know yet people consider them bad. On the same hand I can wield a pharisee defense very well as well but because of the way I play and create my offenses out of instinct often fit the Phillies better! And if you put a magician defense in my deck, I will know how to play it but I can never ever win with it.

So my point is that the reason for a lack of meta may be more because of the specific way the game is created rather than a lack of effort. How can you create a meta when in reality is that most of the time its the unique of the wall decks that work? A good example of this is the New York Nationals.

Thanks, KingLeo

A meta is the collection of decks that people play at tournaments.  In Redemption, the metagame among top tier players might be composed of Disciples, The Deck, Judges, Hand Discard, and Early Church.

No one deck can have a high win ratio against every deck in any game.  This is where the metagame comes in.  It's the game within the game.  It's about predicting what other people will play and playing the best counter to that.  Additionally, it's about preparing your deck for the various decks you might play.  However, there are decks that perform better against the majority of decks due to power and consistency.  For example, a starter deck isn't as good as The Deck.  However, saying the same about most other decks is also true.  However, if the metagame is bad and everybody is countering The Deck, then that doesn't make it a bad deck, just ill suited for the metagame.

Picking a deck because of playstyle is errant. You should choose a deck because it's well suited for the meta, not because you enjoy playing that style of deck.  My "playstyle" is not stall decks, but I played a turtle deck in 2011 because I thought it was the best choice given the top tier metagame.  However, I was forced to play a disciples deck through the early rounds because there is no established metagame overall. This is because people like to play whatever they have fun with, not finding a deck that is good and learning to play that instead. 

What happened in New York was a rogue deck won. This happens because sometimes there are decks outside the meta that are good against the meta that people don't notice.  However, I guarantee you that at least 50% of people who play at nats have no chance at winning it because their deck is not optimal to begin with, regardless of the meta.  And it's not "often" that off the wall decks work.  Hand Discard was not an off the wall deck.  It was a deck that was well known but overlooked.  FBTNB was not an off the wall deck. 

And I stress again, at least 50% of decks at nationals could not have won, regardless of whose hands they were in. 

Not all deck archetypes are viable.