Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Redemption® Resources and Thinktank => Topic started by: redemption collector 777 on September 09, 2018, 12:58:25 PM
-
Im not sure what rotation really implies for Redemption if it were to happen??
What would happen in a set rotation??
If set rotation happens:
1. Do all the older cards become unplayable and not can not use them all together?? (including casual play group games etc)
or do the older cards just become unplayable at official redemption tournaments only??
2. I think I read somewhere that if a set rotation happens there would be two types of tournaments:
a legacy tournament type (where all/any cards can be used) and a modern tournament type (where only the non rotated cards can be used)
Any thoughts or details on these??
-
Set rotation hasn't happened and isn't even officially going to happen. It's something that has been discussed openly as a future plan. For these reasons your questions cannot be answered in any official capacity.
This makes a great conversation topic. Seeing the communities input on these things will help shape the future of set rotation if it becomes a reality.
-
I understand if set rotation is chosen as the best path ahead; however I would just hope that there would still be a "Legacy"-type format so that all the (non-banned) older cards didn't become completely unusable. And as a Type 2 player, I wouldn't mind at all if Type 2 fell under the Legacy category as well.
-
No matter what happens with set rotation it would only ever affect official tournaments. Outside of them you can play the game in literally any way you can think of, you can even make up your own cards if you want.
If set rotation happens in Redemption the cutoff point will likely be I and J decks because the change in card face makes it easy to identify which cards are legal and which are not. There would almost certainly be a legacy format that allowed you to use all cards and the details of that format would entirely depend on what percentage of the type 1 playerbase chose to play it over the "main" format.
-
Problem with set rotation in Redemption is it pretty much instantly makes a majority of my cards worthless. It would be hard to buy further into a game with a small player base to know eventually a majority of all my expensive cards could become practically valueless.
-
Problem with set rotation in Redemption is it pretty much instantly makes a majority of my cards worthless. It would be hard to buy further into a game with a small player base to know eventually a majority of all my expensive cards could become practically valueless.
The alternative is that currently, without rotation, it is significantly harder for a new player to buy into Redemption since they need cards from so many different eras to catch up to everyone. Even in a post rotation world the old players that are "hurt" the most are the ones who still have the cards necessary to play the main format so their ability to play the game is not reduced in addition to the near certainty of a tournament legal legacy category that could still be run. You and your play group could decide what format is best for you and host your tournaments whichever way you prefer.
-
The alternative is that currently, without rotation, it is significantly harder for a new player to buy into Redemption since they need cards from so many different eras to catch up to everyone.
Seriously, how many of the older cards are necessary to be competitive?
Redemption also has a really strong and low-overhead secondary market. So of the older cards you must have to be competitive, how much would it cost you to go out and buy multiple playsets of each on Three Lions?
-
Problem with set rotation in Redemption is it pretty much instantly makes a majority of my cards worthless. It would be hard to buy further into a game with a small player base to know eventually a majority of all my expensive cards could become practically valueless.
Bro hate to tell you but most of the old cards are worthless already. They are simply under powered, in most cases too card-specific (Of One Mind, for example), and generally unplayable in today’s meta (speaking of sets pre-Priests). At this point only collectors purchase the older cards with the exception of a few cards that still see their way into contemporary decks (such as DoN, Great Image, Falling Away, etc). Those cards had their day. But it’s time to rotate them out so we can play Redemption in a new, fresh way, which is so much better now than how it began.
And to your second point, in a CCG there will always be cards that simply don’t have much value, and there will always be cards that retain their value or increase in value, no matter their age. Now that value may decrease due to age, demand, market flood and other factors, but if you choose to buy into and play a CCG you have to accept the fact that you’ll never get back the money you put into it.
-
Problem with set rotation in Redemption is it pretty much instantly makes a majority of my cards worthless. It would be hard to buy further into a game with a small player base to know eventually a majority of all my expensive cards could become practically valueless.
Bro hate to tell you but most of the old cards are worthless already. They are simply under powered, in most cases too card-specific (Of One Mind, for example), and generally unplayable in today’s meta (speaking of sets pre-Priests).
Which is precisely why "new player buy in cost" is not an argument in favor of rotation. (Back to my response to Kevinthe dude.)
At this point only collectors purchase the older cards with the exception of a few cards that still see their way into contemporary decks (such as DoN, Great Image, Falling Away, etc). Those cards had their day. But it’s time to rotate them out so we can play Redemption in a new, fresh way, which is so much better now than how it began.
Why does this small handful of older cards (what is it a dozen in total?) prevent you from playing Redemption "in a new, fresh way?"
-
It doesn’t prevent me from playing in a new, fresh way. What I’m saying is that there are several errata on the old cards and play-as wording to catch up with today’s wording/abilities that make it difficult to keep up with how the card is to be played, particularly for newer players. An example of this is when I build custom decks to sell, mainly geared toward newer players, I have to try and stay away from older cards because their wording is confusing and may cause the newer player to play them differently than what the errata and/or play-as is.
It’s only natural for a CCG to rotate out older cards due to changes in game rules, game play, newer or changed abilities, or whatever. However, I wouldn’t be against a legacy format. And I like the fact that some older cards are becoming legacy rares. Ultimately, what I would love to see is a reprint of all (at least most) of the old cards.
-
The alternative is that currently, without rotation, it is significantly harder for a new player to buy into Redemption since they need cards from so many different eras to catch up to everyone.
Seriously, how many of the older cards are necessary to be competitive?
Redemption also has a really strong and low-overhead secondary market. So of the older cards you must have to be competitive, how much would it cost you to go out and buy multiple playsets of each on Three Lions?
My older cards I don't just mean things like IaC I'm talking everything pre I and J since that's where rotation would likely happen. There are a ton of cards this would eliminate from the card pool, several of which are ones the ban favoring side of the community would have loved to see removed from the playable card pool long ago.
-
If I get to a point to where my "The Second Coming" gets rotated out or that even becomes a plan I'm going to sell my collection unfortunately. I don't want to do that and I don't want to sound like a cry baby. But if I'm going to lose out on cards that cost over $100.00 due to set rotation this game isn't for me.
-
If I get to a point to where my "The Second Coming" gets rotated out or that even becomes a plan I'm going to sell my collection unfortunately. I don't want to do that and I don't want to sound like a cry baby. But if I'm going to lose out on cards that cost over $100.00 due to set rotation this game isn't for me.
I would be very surprised if that ever happens and if it did it would be more than a decade from now. Redemption rotation would likely be a one time thing, or at least extremely infrequent.
-
The alternative is that currently, without rotation, it is significantly harder for a new player to buy into Redemption since they need cards from so many different eras to catch up to everyone.
Seriously, how many of the older cards are necessary to be competitive?
Redemption also has a really strong and low-overhead secondary market. So of the older cards you must have to be competitive, how much would it cost you to go out and buy multiple playsets of each on Three Lions?
My older cards I don't just mean things like IaC I'm talking everything pre I and J since that's where rotation would likely happen. There are a ton of cards this would eliminate from the card pool, several of which are ones the ban favoring side of the community would have loved to see removed from the playable card pool long ago.
How many of these "ton of cards" are needed to be competitive? Given the strong secondary market, you can buy singles of any card. This means there is absolutely no buy in cost for cards like "Angel Food" or "Eyes Open" that no one ever plays. The only buy in cost a new player would have would be for the cards that he/she would actually need for competitive play.
-
As a former RLK I'd like to point out that I didn't start buying specific cards until I had already spent close to a (at the time) decent deck's worth of money on packs. Just because there's only two cards from blue/green packs worth playing doesn't mean I didn't get a couple, especially when I have six dollars to spend for the tournament. Even when I did start looking for specific cards, I did a lot more trading than outright buying - and those cards that I traded away came from packs.
There are indeed a ton of cards, and there is indeed a lot of pack filler. But if we're talking about buy-in costs, most kids aren't building highly synergistic decks, they're tossing together whatever cards they have that look good (and several that don't). New players don't know what cards are good. They might know what themes/strategies are strong, but unless they ask an established player they don't know what they would need to build it.
Full disclosure, I'm for set rotation. I've been part of Redemption for several other growing pains (namely not being able to SoG your own souls and the dom cap) that I disliked at the time, but were undeniably healthy for the game. I feel that set rotation is another (if more drastic) case of this. I am also of the (possibly unpopular) opinion that just because you can't use something you've spent money on, that doesn't mean that the money was wasted. Disney didn't invalidate the fun I had in KotOR or reading the Thrawn trilogy when they declared the old Star Wars EU noncanon, and the money that I spent on Priests cards wouldn't be wasted if set rotation happened because I've had a lot of fun with teal decks.
-
The alternative is that currently, without rotation, it is significantly harder for a new player to buy into Redemption since they need cards from so many different eras to catch up to everyone.
Seriously, how many of the older cards are necessary to be competitive?
Redemption also has a really strong and low-overhead secondary market. So of the older cards you must have to be competitive, how much would it cost you to go out and buy multiple playsets of each on Three Lions?
My older cards I don't just mean things like IaC I'm talking everything pre I and J since that's where rotation would likely happen. There are a ton of cards this would eliminate from the card pool, several of which are ones the ban favoring side of the community would have loved to see removed from the playable card pool long ago.
How many of these "ton of cards" are needed to be competitive? Given the strong secondary market, you can buy singles of any card. This means there is absolutely no buy in cost for cards like "Angel Food" or "Eyes Open" that no one ever plays. The only buy in cost a new player would have would be for the cards that he/she would actually need for competitive play.
I'm just speaking as someone who played Redemption for 8 years with mostly the same deck because my collection was too small to branch out and I went from going 3-4 at Nats to placing in one year largely because I finally had access to a significantly larger portion of the card pool. It's easy to point to a singe deck, list all the old cards, and think it doesn't look too bad but the real struggle is that if you don't own most of the card pool you don't have the ability to branch out and discover what's good or what you enjoy playing.
-
So why don't you just recommend to RLK that they only buy from I & J on until the get to the point where they are looking to be competitive? They will get the newer cards (shiny!) plus all of the best older cards. At the point they want to be competitive they can purchase/trade for the small handful of good older cards they don't have.
Maybe it is just me, but that seems to be a much better option then telling a RLK who just bought a Fall of Man pack--because they heard it was the latest and greatest thing--that 7 of their 15 cards can't be played.
There can be good reasons for set rotation. The claim that Redemption has an exorbitant buy in cost does not strike me as one of them.
-
So why don't you just recommend to RLK that they only buy from I & J on until the get to the point where they are looking to be competitive? They will get the newer cards (shiny!) plus all of the best older cards. At the point they want to be competitive they can purchase/trade for the small handful of good older cards they don't have.
Maybe it is just me, but that seems to be a much better option then telling a RLK who just bought a Fall of Man pack--because they heard it was the latest and greatest thing--that 7 of their 15 cards can't be played.
There can be good reasons for set rotation. The claim that Redemption has an exorbitant buy in cost does not strike me as one of them.
It isn't just one small handful though. There's a small handful of competitive pre-I/J cards for each individual deck. I'm not saying new players can't obtain 60 cards for a competitive deck (Although it is a pretty large amount of effort especially for things like Woes but that's not relevant to rotation), I'm saying rotation greatly reduce the difficulty in obtaining a competitive collection. If I was still a casual player with a small collection when I came up with the CoL deck I would have looked at the price of Love and Christ's Triumph (Both were about $30 at the time) I wouldn't have been able to justify trading for two cards that expensive that I would likely never use in any other deck, I would have stopped working on the deck before I came up with the actually competitive version, and no one would have played the deck at Nats. Things that older, more invested players never consider (Obtaining a niche $30 card because they almost certainly have it already or can easily trade for it) can be the deciding factor whether a new or casual player places at Nationals.
I agree, though, that there are many other excellent benefits of rotation. The reason I brought up the new player aspect was to counter the complaint that old players will "lose" and bunch of their collection.
-
There can be good reasons for set rotation. The claim that Redemption has an exorbitant buy in cost does not strike me as one of them.
I'm saying rotation greatly reduce the difficulty in obtaining a competitive collection. If I was still a casual player with a small collection when I came up with the CoL deck I would have looked at the price of Love and Christ's Triumph (Both were about $30 at the time) I wouldn't have been able to justify trading for two cards that expensive that I would likely never use in any other deck, I would have stopped working on the deck before I came up with the actually competitive version, and no one would have played the deck at Nats.
I really do not understand how your example ties into set rotation. Both Love and Christ's Triumph (at least the expensive ones) are post-I/J. Rotation would have absolutely nothing to make it simpler or cheaper to get those cards.
-
There can be good reasons for set rotation. The claim that Redemption has an exorbitant buy in cost does not strike me as one of them.
I'm saying rotation greatly reduce the difficulty in obtaining a competitive collection. If I was still a casual player with a small collection when I came up with the CoL deck I would have looked at the price of Love and Christ's Triumph (Both were about $30 at the time) I wouldn't have been able to justify trading for two cards that expensive that I would likely never use in any other deck, I would have stopped working on the deck before I came up with the actually competitive version, and no one would have played the deck at Nats.
I really do not understand how your example ties into set rotation. Both Love and Christ's Triumph (at least the expensive ones) are post-I/J. Rotation would have absolutely nothing to make it simpler or cheaper to get those cards.
While my personal instance wouldn’t have been solved by rotation it’s an example of how not having easy access to a large collection makes a big difference.
-
I really do not understand how your example ties into set rotation. Both Love and Christ's Triumph (at least the expensive ones) are post-I/J. Rotation would have absolutely nothing to make it simpler or cheaper to get those cards.
While my personal instance wouldn’t have been solved by rotation it’s an example of how not having easy access to a large collection makes a big difference.
So here is an example that is on point. When I started playing Warriors had already sold out. Yet I had tons of decks that included the good Warriors cards: the FBtN characters, Ark, Holy Grail, Dragon Raid, New Jerusalem (dom). How about you? Do you have decks with cards from Warriors or Women in them? How did you figure out you wanted/needed those cards? How did you acquire them?
-
I really do not understand how your example ties into set rotation. Both Love and Christ's Triumph (at least the expensive ones) are post-I/J. Rotation would have absolutely nothing to make it simpler or cheaper to get those cards.
While my personal instance wouldn’t have been solved by rotation it’s an example of how not having easy access to a large collection makes a big difference.
So here is an example that is on point. When I started playing Warriors had already sold out. Yet I had tons of decks that included the good Warriors cards: the FBtN characters, Ark, Holy Grail, Dragon Raid, New Jerusalem (dom). How about you? Do you have decks with cards from Warriors or Women in them? How did you figure out you wanted/needed those cards? How did you acquire them?
Until the last couple years cards like Grail and gold KoT were cards I really wanted but never had the spare trade value to justify getting. I actually still don't have a gold KoT to this day.
-
Like MJB, Warriors was already sold out when I started playing. To give you an idea, Gold KoT was around the same trade value as an AoCP ($40 circa early 2006), so there was absolutely no way I was getting that via trade, and even if I could no one was going to trade one (in our group, anyway). Same went for Harvest Time. If you were a new player, you were simply out of luck. Those two cards were certainly played, and I certainly felt like I had a disadvantage not having them. The same comparison can surely be made now for Woes and TSC for newer players, but on a far more extreme level.
It was only thanks to the Factory set released around the end of 2006 (I think) that I and a few others in my group ended up getting the Warriors set at all. However, even then the impact was lessened greatly, for a few reasons:
Reprints- KoT and Prince of this World were reprinted in the Priests set. Though their colors were different, they were now attainable (KoT especially). Also, around the same time Harvest Time was reprinted as a promo, ensuring it was available to newer players too. Granted, winning wasn't always an option, but I traded/gave away a fair number of HT and CoF in my day and still ended up with around 35 HT and 20 CoF when I sold my cards, so HT and CoF were easy enough to get. In fact, my very first tournament an older player gave me a CoF promo for nothing, so those winning players were (and hopefully still are) generous to newcomers. Basically, reprints of older cards basically nullified the lack of access to the most competitive of the older sets.
Shifting Meta- Priests and FooF soon after saw the rise of decks that didn't use many older cards. Things like Genesis/Romans, Z's Temple, and Prophets were almost solely tin and Priests-based. You didn't necessarily need a FBTN deck anymore, as other decks were now competitive. Other themes were expanded and built up, and other sets become dominant in time.
So yeah, the issue of cost was real back then. Even cards like GoYS and DoN, which have close to no value nowadays, were uber-prized and difficult to acquire for new players back in the day. But repackaging (TEXP, DI, older packs with the Tins) mostly solved this, for better or worse. Now, there aren't many cards with value from those older sets that are still competitive, but value or the losing of perceived value of older cards is not the reason for set rotation. Hardly. It boils down to power and refreshment, and little else...
-
Like MJB, Warriors was already sold out when I started playing. To give you an idea, Gold KoT was around the same trade value as an AoCP ($40 circa early 2006), so there was absolutely no way I was getting that via trade, and even if I could no one was going to trade one (in our group, anyway). Same went for Harvest Time. If you were a new player, you were simply out of luck. Those two cards were certainly played, and I certainly felt like I had a disadvantage not having them. The same comparison can surely be made now for Woes and TSC for newer players, but on a far more extreme level.
It was only thanks to the Factory set released around the end of 2006 (I think) that I and a few others in my group ended up getting the Warriors set at all. However, even then the impact was lessened greatly, for a few reasons:
Reprints- KoT and Prince of this World were reprinted in the Priests set. Though their colors were different, they were now attainable (KoT especially). Also, around the same time Harvest Time was reprinted as a promo, ensuring it was available to newer players too. Granted, winning wasn't always an option, but I traded/gave away a fair number of HT and CoF in my day and still ended up with around 35 HT and 20 CoF when I sold my cards, so HT and CoF were easy enough to get. In fact, my very first tournament an older player gave me a CoF promo for nothing, so those winning players were (and hopefully still are) generous to newcomers. Basically, reprints of older cards basically nullified the lack of access to the most competitive of the older sets.
Shifting Meta- Priests and FooF soon after saw the rise of decks that didn't use many older cards. Things like Genesis/Romans, Z's Temple, and Prophets were almost solely tin and Priests-based. You didn't necessarily need a FBTN deck anymore, as other decks were now competitive. Other themes were expanded and built up, and other sets become dominant in time.
So yeah, the issue of cost was real back then. Even cards like GoYS and DoN, which have close to no value nowadays, were uber-prized and difficult to acquire for new players back in the day. But repackaging (TEXP, DI, older packs with the Tins) mostly solved this, for better or worse. Now, there aren't many cards with value from those older sets that are still competitive, but value or the losing of perceived value of older cards is not the reason for set rotation. Hardly. It boils down to power and refreshment, and little else...
I remember finally getting a DoN back in the day. I was so happy because I felt like I chased that card forever and no one would trade for one. Now I have so many its almost a joke lol.
-
As for rotation nowadays, I don't think there's ever been more of a need. Cards like Haman's Plot, the ultimate wealth-flaunting card, still ensure those with larger back collections have an edge over those without the means to make two or three identical decks solely for tournament play. Cards like Uzzah, which are splashed into 100% of decks for the easiest block of all time. Cards like Sam and AutO, which enable the most overplayed, OP, boring offenses since their inception 7 years ago. Cards like ANB and Hidden Treasures, which have broken the game time and again and require care to work around in modern set-building. Cards like HSR, which are wholly one-sided and warp the gamestate so badly that counters are necessary. Cards like FA (w), which take away a player's feeling of accomplishment without cost.
I-J seems to be the agreed-upon cutoff point, and that makes sense to me. However, there's close to no good way to do a set rotation in this modern day without first revamping how sets are packaged, how reprints are handled, and predicting how the overall meta shifts with each set. This is so unfeasible by my understanding that it is still a couple of years away from anything resembling implementation.
If it does, though, of course a "legacy" format (where most anything goes) should certainly be played in conjunction with the modern at tournaments (Booster and Sealed would both be of this type).
-
Those are definitely good points- may I ask though, what about just banning the 10 or so problematic cards and leave the rest for niche combos, nostalgia, collectors, etc?
-
Those are definitely good points- may I ask though, what about just banning the 10 or so problematic cards and leave the rest for niche combos, nostalgia, collectors, etc?
This was the very question I asked myself just a few days ago. I know people have said “if you ban the top 10 “offenders” another 10 will rise to their place.” But I don’t think that is truly the case. I’d love to hear people’s opinions of the up to 10 cards that need to be banned. Then if that is the case, what cards would then become a problem.
I’m actually going to start a thread on that, not to derail this. Give me a few moments.
-
Those are definitely good points- may I ask though, what about just banning the 10 or so problematic cards and leave the rest for niche combos, nostalgia, collectors, etc?
That's the thing, though; the longer those cards are left in the game, the harder it becomes to account for every interaction, especially when the new sets are developed. How many people thought about Ram's Horn when RoJ was developed? There's just so much backlog that's essentially worthless, but it takes only one obscure card to cause unnecessary headaches.
I don't see anything wrong with addressing those problem cards now, before any sort of set rotation. But I don't think it's reasonable/feasible to keep the rest of the older cards in circulation forever. It's time to move on from Highway/Stillness/False Peace/Momentum Change/Confusion (pr) shenanigans.
-
I find it interesting that most people seem to think I/J deck is the set rotation cut off. I'm not sure that's a good idea right now. I counted up the number of cards that would be available and I got 772, it doesn't include promos, but I also didn't count for multiple printings (especially in the starter deck). I don't know how many cards need to be available for the game to be ideal (whatever that means). For reference that's about the same number of cards that were available up to Apostles (again, there might be some multicounting due to multiple printings, and set design has gone toward a higher density of "value" cards, so this isn't a perfect comparison, although the game was quite a bit different back then.
I've always though that if we did introduce set rotation we would do it slowly. I don't really want to see the FooF tins getting rotated out right away. Keeping everything from FooF on would give us 1197 by my count (my count is probably somewhat inaccurate due to promos and possible counting multiple printings).
Whereas I'm a fan of set rotation as an idea, to over the years clear out old cards in order to make it easier to create new cards without having to worry about 20+ years of sets and changing gameplay priorities throughout the same time. I'm a fan of a slow version of rotation, with the occasional ban. I'm not sure I'm a big fan of the one and done rotation that has been suggested, especially when it's drops so many cards.
-
...what about just banning the 10 or so problematic cards and leave the rest for niche combos, nostalgia, collectors, etc?
If you make playing the cards a crime soon only criminals will play the cards.
-
I respectfully disagree with set rotation. If the desire is to see more diversity in the cards that are being played, I would suggest that more practical solutions lie in the hands of the elders through rule changes.
I feel this is better, more versatile solution that can be changed if the desired outcomes are not realized the first time around ( or second, or third. No harm in trying). I believe this can be done many ways but the easiest way would be adding additional deckbuilding restrictions.
For example, if it's drawing that needs tempered, make a rule that you can only have X cards with a draw ability in a deck. This will force innovation and allow us control the tempo of the game we all love.
An alternative to deckbuilding restrictions would be to limit the number of cards with X ability that could be played each turn (or X anything for that matter). This solution has worked for us in the past to overcome several obstacles.
Amending rules would allow us to retain the rich diversity of Redemption while keeping the power/speed/meta in check and encourage revival of the awesome themes and deck strategies that have fallen to the wayside.
-
I respectfully disagree with set rotation. If the desire is to see more diversity in the cards that are being played, I would suggest that more practical solutions lie in the hands of the elders through rule changes.
I feel this is better, more versatile solution that can be changed if the desired outcomes are not realized the first time around ( or second, or third. No harm in trying). I believe this can be done many ways but the easiest way would be adding additional deckbuilding restrictions.
For example, if it's drawing that needs tempered, make a rule that you can only have X cards with a draw ability in a deck. This will force innovation and allow us control the tempo of the game we all love.
An alternative to deckbuilding restrictions would be to limit the number of cards with X ability that could be played each turn (or X anything for that matter). This solution has worked for us in the past to overcome several obstacles.
Amending rules would allow us to retain the rich diversity of Redemption while keeping the power/speed/meta in check and encourage revival of the awesome themes and deck strategies that have fallen to the wayside.
As the card pool becomes bigger, decks become faster and more homogenized. This is a fact. The only ways I know that exist to offset this are power creep, bans, and rotation. Until now Redemption has been using power creep. Now it must use one or both of the other two options.
-
I respectfully disagree with set rotation. If the desire is to see more diversity in the cards that are being played, I would suggest that more practical solutions lie in the hands of the elders through rule changes.
I feel this is better, more versatile solution that can be changed if the desired outcomes are not realized the first time around ( or second, or third. No harm in trying). I believe this can be done many ways but the easiest way would be adding additional deckbuilding restrictions.
For example, if it's drawing that needs tempered, make a rule that you can only have X cards with a draw ability in a deck. This will force innovation and allow us control the tempo of the game we all love.
An alternative to deckbuilding restrictions would be to limit the number of cards with X ability that could be played each turn (or X anything for that matter). This solution has worked for us in the past to overcome several obstacles.
Amending rules would allow us to retain the rich diversity of Redemption while keeping the power/speed/meta in check and encourage revival of the awesome themes and deck strategies that have fallen to the wayside.
As the card pool becomes bigger, decks become faster and more homogenized. This is a fact. The only ways I know that exist to offset this are power creep, bans, and rotation. Until now Redemption has been using power creep. Now it must use one or both of the other two options.
Or, you know, more of the first.
-
Thanks for your input, Urijah! I for one like how you're thinking 8)
-
I respectfully disagree with set rotation. If the desire is to see more diversity in the cards that are being played, I would suggest that more practical solutions lie in the hands of the elders through rule changes.
I feel this is better, more versatile solution that can be changed if the desired outcomes are not realized the first time around ( or second, or third. No harm in trying). I believe this can be done many ways but the easiest way would be adding additional deckbuilding restrictions.
For example, if it's drawing that needs tempered, make a rule that you can only have X cards with a draw ability in a deck. This will force innovation and allow us control the tempo of the game we all love.
An alternative to deckbuilding restrictions would be to limit the number of cards with X ability that could be played each turn (or X anything for that matter). This solution has worked for us in the past to overcome several obstacles.
Amending rules would allow us to retain the rich diversity of Redemption while keeping the power/speed/meta in check and encourage revival of the awesome themes and deck strategies that have fallen to the wayside.
Consistent rule changes is not good for a game. The best games have a short list of rules that are easy to understand. Changing the rules every year will cause frustration for new players who are trying to learn the game as well as experienced players who are used to how the game works already.
As the card pool becomes bigger, decks become faster and more homogenized. This is a fact.
Let's be clear though, the special abilities on the new cards have to foster speed in order for this to be true. If the new cards foster slowing the game down then decks will not become faster. For example, the elders could come up with a new special ability that takes cards from play and puts them back into a players hand. They could call it something like "boing" or "expel" because the cards hit the table and just bounce right back. Actually, why not just call it Bounce. Yeah, that's a good idea.
-
For example, the elders could come up with a new special ability that takes cards from play and puts them back into a players hand. They could call it something like "boing" or "expel" because the cards hit the table and just bounce right back. Actually, why not just call it Bounce. Yeah, that's a good idea.
Bounce? I like that. Lets see if we can get it on a new card or two. ::) :)
Now it must use one or both of the other two options.
I'm curious about this statement. I followed everything else KtD was saying but I'm not sure I understand why we must use the other options now.
-
Now it must use one or both of the other two options.
I'm curious about this statement. I followed everything else KtD was saying but I'm not sure I understand why we must use the other options now.
[/quote]
I thought it was consensus that rampant power creep is typically unhealthy for a game. My understanding is that Redemption has had power creep because of a desire to raise the average power level of the game and that we reached an acceptable level around CoW. Power creep is fine if your intention is actually to bring the game to a higher power level but it's not a good primary method of reducing the card pool. It's significantly messier and still lets extremely powerful older cards (FA, Throne, etc) exist whereas rotation and bans are fine tools and more likely to have their intended impact on the game.
-
For those that dont want to fully read heres the short version. I fully support set rotation, I believe ban lists should be utilized to a larger extent, Redemption is a great unique game.
So as for why I all this stuff here my current line of thought. If I had to compare Redemption to other successful card games the one that is most similar is YuGiOh imo. Yugioh is mostly a resourceless game has a large card pool, no set rotation, and has numerous archetypes spanning a long length of time and power creep has definitely shifted what is good in yugioh. Redemption however is a VERY unique game in regards to content, how the game is played, structured, etc. So it's hard to fully compare it to just 1 specific game. Reason I bring up YuGiOh is to address how they deal with decks that get out of hand or problematic cards. YuGiOh has a massive Restricted/limited/semi-limited list. Multiple copies of cards only really affects T2 but in general YuGiOh shapes the power level of the format and deck diversity by controlling this list. If a deck gets too good for too long expect part of the engine or payoffs to be hit. Also decks that have served their time can have cards come off the list to reinvigorate those older strategies and get people excited about some of their older cards. The good thing about how YuGiOh approaches bannings is that deck diversity at the top level pretty much always has at least a handful of tier 1 decks and several tier 2 or viable competitive strategies because the egregious stuff gets taken out. Also unbannings are an exciting thing that keeps people interested even if those strategies have dwindled in power over the course of time. But YuGiOh also suffers in that it is a very quick high power leveled game, the ban list is massive and not even close to being all inclusive but is more or less just a means of answering the truly broken stuff and controlling the meta to keep things somewhat fresh.
So I like the aspects of trying to keep various strategies in check to promote deck diversity and also having the option to unban thing over time to reinvigorate strategies. Not much else though and I dont think simply copying what yugioh does will fix everything.
MtG answers its problems game wise with a combination of set rotation and bannings. This is closer to what I thing is best for Redemption but heres why. Set rotation doesn't explicitly mean you cant use older cards. This is usually because with set rotation new formats emerge usually splitting into a format with only newer stuff and then a format with everything. (MTG has multiple formats like this, hearthstone has this) For Redemption this would likely mean that due to all the existing formats one would likely have to be phased out (probably multi due to multiple reasons but that's another topic). Set rotation introduced the ability to control what complications exist in the format and deck diversity would in theory be less stagnant due to the limited card pool and rotating sets. The format that uses everything would basically be as things are now. However when bans are used in conjunction with rotation the older formats still have life and excitement.
That's why I believe something like this should be implemented for Redemption. It may be some trial and error but it always is. I dont believe the notion that if we just ban something something new will just take its spot is a viable reason to not ban cards. To me it's almost encouragement to ban things as it causes a meta shift to where we can figure out what is truly broken and not and if nothing else. Promote deck diversity while aiming to control power levels. Set Rotation to me is more of instituting a new format which I feel would be good for the game and for teaching especially.
Another option that intrigues me is how YuGiOh duel links handles ban lists. There are banned cards but for limiting cards there is a list of cards at 1 and a list at 2 and decks may only contain 1 card at 1 and 2 at 2 an no others. So it makes it to where you have to choose which card at 1 you want to use and which 2 2s you want cause you cant use others (similar to the dom/soul cap I guess). Its an interesting way to promote diversity without necessarily banning everything. Not sure how feasible that would be. But it's a thought.
Redemption is a truly unique game that really doesnt compare to any game. What we can do is look at the structure of other games and their formats and competitive scenes to try and come up with ideas to better Redemption. That format structuring stuff like this I feel is easier to discuss and come up with ideas for. Rules and gameplay structure stuff is the harder part.
Thanks for all who read this. I love this game and I love all of us who are passionate about it like yourselves.
-
As someone who's played a lot of YGO recently thanks to the Switch game, I can echo Joe's points there. I can't imagine not banning cards in that game. It's a different beast, sure, but the concept is the same.
I agree with KtD. RDT's post, while I'm 60% sure is a joke, has me a bit concerned because power creep isn't a great long term solution, and sometimes not even a short term one. Power creep has basically destroyed YGO as a game. If Redemption is still not seriously considering rotation or more bans at this point, I don't know what else to say...
-
I feel like the elders have been pretty clear that rotation is going to happen, just not exactly sure of the when.
-
It seems they are building a good size newer pool of rebooted cards that will allow for a good rotation.
-
Okay, it seems they set rotation is going to be a thing. Breaks my heart, btw. Having all of the cards at your disposal is part of what makes Redmeption the awesome game it is.
I still feel that rules can make it viable. For example, what if we made a rule that each player could use only two of each ability per round. A simple rule with huge consequences. Only two draw abilities. Two searches. Two band abilities. You would also have to be careful to plan for your defense that round. This would make a lot more strategies playable. Virtually all of the archetypes would be in the running again.
I am trying to keep the old-school feel of redemption. If we can't stop the train, maybe we can travel another way. What if Redemption had a new play type? I don't know... Vintage or Legacy T1. All cards are viable and the rules keep the governor on so that the game's original feel and pace are intact.
Another change that could be made is something like a tier system for deck-building purposes. For example, list the four most popular lost souls/dominants/forts in tier one and allow only three per deck. Something like that. I feel like this is possible. This (or something like it) could work. ;)
What say you?
-
When set rotation happens I’m sure there will be a legacy format. But for regular tournament play, regarding RNRS and official categories, most likely it will only include cards that have not been rotated.
For the record, I’m for set rotation. The old cards need to go (of course there will be cards I miss, but the legacy rares help mitigate this). There’s no point putting a bunch of patches on a shirt; at some point you just need a new shirt.
-
With the idea of set rotation would the old cards be rotated out for good or would they sometimes be rotated back in?
With a legacy format as a tournament category how much of the old cards value would be retained? Would it be possible that the old cards might actually gain value compared to what they have now since they would feasibly see more use in legacy than they get right now?
-
I know a lot of people feel they know what set rotation means, but yet have not read anything that the Elders/Playtesters/whatever name you want to give have said. I try to keep up with everything that goes on within Redemption, and I realize I could have missed something, but there has NEVER been a single time when I saw cards were no longer playable (except for banned cards). While the full details have not been disclosed, and more than likely will be what Watchman said at Nationals at least, that doesn't mean all the cards are gone or worthless. So in other words:
Until brand NEW information comes out stating something COMPLETELY different than what has already been said, you CAN still play with all the old cards you have.
If you have seen otherwise please point me to it.
-
When set rotation happens I’m sure there will be a legacy format. But for regular tournament play, regarding RNRS and official categories, most likely it will only include cards that have not been rotated.
For the record, I’m for set rotation. The old cards need to go (of course there will be cards I miss, but the legacy rares help mitigate this). There’s no point putting a bunch of patches on a shirt; at some point you just need a new shirt.
The legacy rares help mitigate this. I'd agree if they were creating legacy rares that were reprints of older cards, not cards with the same name or a similar name that changes the ability. I understand how Red Dragon and Dragon's Wrath is more specific, and now color appropriate, but that makes it to specific to be a popular concept, where previously Wrath of Satan could be played on any black evil character it didn't becomes especially powerful when used on one in particular. It sound like Wrath of Satan will no become a legacy rare with its original ability. Board wipe is a familiar concept in CCG's, and I would particularly be sad to see it disappear outright.
Also, thus far with the discussion of rotation. No one has mentioned specifically the impact to type 1 or type 2, its still all speculation. It's still at least a minimum of a year away from happening. I for one will keep building decks with older cards, but will include newer cards as well, as they suit the deck appropriately.
Steven
Ethereal Synergy Inc
PS, I've been playing since Prophets was out. I remember when Women's first released. (and Warriors, and …)
-
Gabe stated this in a discussion on Discord -
"Ultimately “rotation” isn’t rotation at all. It’s the introduction and support of a new format with a smaller card pool. The direction of the game has always and will always be heavily influenced by the fan base. If the players don’t like/want a fresh format then it won’t succeed or last. Nobody plans to force any rotation/format on the game."
and the forum thread can be found [here] (https://www.cactusforums.com/game-play-variations/supporting-a-new-format/msg600711/#msg600711) The introduction of LoC only Booster draft and Constructed categories is probably a good indication as to where we may be headed.
Godspeed,
Mike
-
@Whiteandgold7 There will always be cards that get rotated that we each personally don’t want to see rotated. This occurs in every CCG. And there are cards that get rotated that get a makeover. It doesn’t necessarily mean that the new card is not as good as the old one (like your Wrath of satan example). It just means that it’s different. Personally, I like the new Dragon’s Wrath but of course it does have its limits, as it should. I also like wrath of satan. Why not run both in your deck then? ;)
As for board clearing cards, there are still such cards in the game, and one’s a legacy rare even (Great Image). But keep in mind that that strategy is changing with today’s cards in that there are a lot more protections from board clearing cards than there used to be.