Author Topic: Re: A Game Lost Completely due to the Draw (Read 7139 times)

Minister Polarius · « **on:** July 13, 2009, 08:18:58 PM »

Sounds like it was lost due to the draw and the faulty mechanic that STILL hasn't been fixed. I am speaking, of course, about the zero-disadvantage to going first paradigm. No other card game gives every advantage to whoever goes first and none to whoever goes second. For years, many people have been clamoring for a no-draw on first turn (rather than first round) rule, or a most LS in LoB (rather than most drawn) rule, or (as most prefer) both. Still the PTB have completely neglected such a huge and easily correctable error in the game mechanics.

I know that Rob listens to players about huge errors, and I'm hoping this one will get as much consideration as banning NJ (which almost nobody wants).

lightningninja · « **Reply #1 on:** July 13, 2009, 09:26:32 PM »

Wait... you don't like that the first person gets to draw?

BubbleBoy · « **Reply #2 on:** July 13, 2009, 09:33:34 PM »

I see where you're coming from, and I agree that one or more of those options should be considered.

Master KChief · « **Reply #3 on:** July 13, 2009, 09:35:42 PM »

i completely agree, and i was going to mention this in the other thread about lost souls. i've been stressing for YEARS redemption should have a 'go first or draw first' rule. it would immensly balance the game.

Colin Michael · « **Reply #4 on:** July 13, 2009, 09:36:08 PM »

I like the no draw on first as well.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #5 on:** July 13, 2009, 10:11:37 PM »

As an interesting contrast, Pokemon originally allowed players to draw on every turn including the first. There was an eventual rule change that did not allow the first player to draw on their first turn, but did allow the second player. This was done in the name of fairness, since the player to go first was decided by a coin toss.

Now, many years later, the newest Pokemon rulebook returns to the original design, allowing both players to draw on every turn.

I have to wonder if they second-guessed changing the rule in the first place. However, I also wonder why it took many years to switch it back.

Just food for thought.

lightningninja · « **Reply #6 on:** July 13, 2009, 11:57:13 PM »

Not a bad idea, they do it with teams.

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #7 on:** July 14, 2009, 12:31:57 AM »

I also agree that the initial draw mechanic needs to change. That isnt NEARLY as game breaking to fix, and I agree it can be a problem. A simple fix is this... Both draw 8. P1 goes first. P1 draws no extra cards. P2 goes next, and is allowed to d3 first.

lightningninja · « **Reply #8 on:** July 14, 2009, 12:33:34 AM »

But would you have won (for sure) if you would have drawn those three? I don't think many games are decided on those three cards.

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #9 on:** July 14, 2009, 12:35:05 AM »

I don't know, BUT, it can be a major problem if P2 gets a bad d8, as the opponent gets to attack them twice before they draw again.

ChristianSoldier · « **Reply #10 on:** July 14, 2009, 12:39:52 AM »

I like the idea of the second player drawing 3, first of all it makes players think more about whether or not they want to draw the extra cards or make the first rescue or put down artifacts/forts, etc before getting attacked

It gives more of a reason not to start.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #11 on:** July 14, 2009, 10:55:43 AM »

#1 - It has already been stated that when the next rulebook arrives that the person with the most LS in their LoB will have first choice (fixing the Hopper problem).

#2 - I think the "2nd player gets to draw 3" is an AWESOME idea. It has already been tested in TEAMS with great success, and I think that it should be adopted across the board.

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #12 on:** July 14, 2009, 11:04:09 AM »

I know these ideas have been pushed for before... but I see no reason not to add this.

I will back this with full support. I know a lot of games can easily be decided by who goes first. P2 drawing 3 would help even the playing field.

Captain Kirk · « **Reply #13 on:** July 14, 2009, 11:06:21 AM »

Another method of fixing it that has been implemented in teams in the intro prep phase. I back that idea as it gives more power to site decks. The 2nd player draws first is also a great idea that is used in teams and works great.

Kirk

Korunks · « **Reply #14 on:** July 14, 2009, 11:07:55 AM »

This is actually an idea that I totally agree with. When I used to MTG this was the rule on play and I loved its fairness. If you are setup to have a great first turn you sacrifice the draw, and as compensation the opponent gets to reinforce himself on his first turn, or replenish his losses from the first round. When can we implement it

happyjosiah · « **Reply #15 on:** July 14, 2009, 11:23:16 AM »

This is silly. Sometimes you are happy you don't have to draw cards the first turn if you drew no lost souls and have a nice offense. Sometimes you are trying to draw your deck as fast as possible. Redemption already has an extremely generous amount of card drawing compared to most CCGs. It's fine the way it is. In all likelihood, the rule as you suggest would give a big advantage to the player going second. But again, it's situational. No rule you can make will ever stop an example of "I lost because of this draw" from happening.

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #16 on:** July 14, 2009, 11:24:41 AM »

I agree, but its just not right that player two can be attacked TWICE without being allowed to draw (excluding SA's).

Captain Kirk · « **Reply #17 on:** July 14, 2009, 11:25:24 AM »

Before we implement a 2nd player draws first mechanism, we need to implement an intro prep phase. In my opinion, that would help fix many of these quick losses, by being able to play down a crucial artifact, such as Unknown Nation, Holy of Holies, or Unholy Writ, or place your Lost Soul in a site, before the first player attacks.

Kirk

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #18 on:** July 14, 2009, 11:36:19 AM »

I would accept one or both of these changes with much happiness.

The Schaef · « **Reply #19 on:** July 14, 2009, 11:47:29 AM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on July 13, 2009, 08:18:58 PM

No other card game gives every advantage to whoever goes first and none to whoever goes second.

What compensation does the Vs system give the second player?

STAMP · « **Reply #20 on:** July 14, 2009, 12:44:10 PM »

So it sounds like everyone agrees that the player to play second has the disadvantage. How about this: give player 2 the option to declare a re-draw of hands on the first turn only.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #21 on:** July 14, 2009, 02:20:06 PM »

Quote from: Captain Kirk on July 14, 2009, 11:25:24 AM

Before we implement a 2nd player draws first mechanism, we need to implement an intro prep phase. In my opinion, that would help fix many of these quick losses, by being able to play down a crucial artifact, such as Unknown Nation, Holy of Holies, or Unholy Writ, or place your Lost Soul in a site, before the first player attacks.

I also totally support the "intro-prep" phase idea. This has also been tested already in TEAMS with great success and should be implemented across the board.

"2nd player draw 3" and "intro-prep" ftw!

Korunks · « **Reply #22 on:** July 14, 2009, 02:22:38 PM »

whats intro-prep?

Captain Kirk · « **Reply #23 on:** July 14, 2009, 02:26:32 PM »

At the beginning of a turn before anyone starts, there is an introductory preparation phase, in which both players can perform any actions they would normally perform during their prep phase.

Kirk

Korunks · « **Reply #24 on:** July 14, 2009, 02:33:09 PM »

Oh thats actually a pretty good idea, I just wonder if that will slow games?

mjwolfe · « **Reply #25 on:** July 14, 2009, 02:36:51 PM »

I completely support the intro-prep phase idea plus a draw phase on the first turn starting with the second player. These sound like easier changes to adopt than some of the other more drastic changes being suggested to cut down on the number of "three turns and you lost 5-0" scenarios. We've used them in teams play and found them to work pretty well.

Plus, they'd be easier to explain to players who show up at tournaments after they haven't played in a few years. Some of the other ideas being mentioned might even make their old deck invalid for that tournament.

Mike

Smokey · « **Reply #26 on:** July 14, 2009, 02:38:24 PM »

Quote from: Korunks on July 14, 2009, 02:33:09 PM

Oh thats actually a pretty good idea, I just wonder if that will slow games?

Why would this slow games? Each person would play maybe 2 cards before the game starts

Korunks · « **Reply #27 on:** July 14, 2009, 02:40:44 PM »

Defense can get out faster, makes those early lost souls a little harder, in T1 that can be the difference between a 40 minute game and a 15 minute game is the rescue of a lost soul. Not saying that games taking longer is bad, just something to consider.

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #28 on:** July 14, 2009, 02:43:41 PM »

Quote from: Korunks on July 14, 2009, 02:40:44 PM

Defense can get out faster, makes those early lost souls a little harder

Thats the point. If you get a bad draw with like 4 ls out, you NEED to be able to defend better or else you're hosed. This helps stop the 3 turn wins which I agree can be a problem.

Smokey · « **Reply #29 on:** July 14, 2009, 02:52:46 PM »

Quote from: Korunks on July 14, 2009, 02:40:44 PM

Defense can get out faster, makes those early lost souls a little harder, in T1 that can be the difference between a 40 minute game and a 15 minute game is the rescue of a lost soul. Not saying that games taking longer is bad, just something to consider.

I think a 40 minute game that was more well played on both sides in more enjoyable to both parties than a 15 minute game that someone lost because of a bad draw and inability to defend, but I don't think 25 minutes will be decided by an artifact or fortress

Quote from: Lamborghini_diablo on July 14, 2009, 02:43:41 PM

Quote from: Korunks on July 14, 2009, 02:40:44 PM
Defense can get out faster, makes those early lost souls a little harder

Thats the point. If you get a bad draw with like 4 ls out, you NEED to be able to defend better or else you're hosed. This helps stop the 3 turn wins which I agree can be a problem.

Korunks · « **Reply #30 on:** July 14, 2009, 02:55:57 PM »

As I said I don't think it is a bad thing and I am all for it. I just like to think of as many repercussions as I can.

Captain Kirk · « **Reply #31 on:** July 14, 2009, 04:28:04 PM »

The idea has been suggested for at least 3 years now, it would be awesome if it was implemented in the near future... Especially with all the people calling for more drastic changes, this is a very simple change that will achieve the desired end result, less 3 turn 5-0 games.

Kirk

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #32 on:** July 14, 2009, 04:46:24 PM »

Both the "2nd player draw 3" and "intro-prep phase" are simple enough changes that they could just be added to the next rulebook that comes out.

Of course that will be with the 2010 starter decks, that have 60 cards each and one of the decks is based on apostles (and includes enough cards to make them playable). Woops, I think I was dreaming there for a minute

D-man · « **Reply #33 on:** July 14, 2009, 05:08:20 PM »

Are you referring to the rulebook that specifies, "A game is played until one player has rescued 6 lost souls."?

Professoralstad · « **Reply #34 on:** July 15, 2009, 12:09:40 PM »

I am in full support of both the intro prep phase and 2nd player draw on first turn. It's simple, and would definitely help avoid quick 5-0 games. Having been on both sides of the coin on that one, I can tell you neither winning nor losing in such a manner is fun.

Redemption Player X · « **Reply #35 on:** July 15, 2009, 12:14:36 PM »

Quote from: Professoralstad on July 15, 2009, 12:09:40 PM

I am in full support of both the intro prep phase and 2nd player draw on first turn. It's simple, and would definitely help avoid quick 5-0 games. Having been on both sides of the coin on that one, I can tell you neither winning nor losing in such a manner is fun.

Agreed, even though I count on them not being set up to get my first Lost Soul. I usually end up losing anyway though

NWJosh · « **Reply #36 on:** July 15, 2009, 12:53:37 PM »

I like both ideas, especially the into prep phase. I know more then a few times I've drawn Unknown Nation or Unholy Writ and had to sit there unable to stop my opponents 4/4 no SA guy all because I didn't play first.

Cameron the Conqueror · « **Reply #37 on:** July 15, 2009, 12:54:55 PM »

I agree that a pre-prep phase should be created. IMO, it is the best solution to the problem.

lightningninja · « **Reply #38 on:** July 15, 2009, 07:13:12 PM »

What exactly do you guys mean by an intro prep phase?

sk · « **Reply #39 on:** July 15, 2009, 07:15:25 PM »

An intro prep phase gives each player a chance to put cards down before the game begins.

BubbleBoy · « **Reply #40 on:** July 15, 2009, 10:55:50 PM »

So like, once its decided who goes first, the opponent of that player gets to put down some forts and arts and stuff before the player can RA?

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #41 on:** July 15, 2009, 10:59:07 PM »

Both people can

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #42 on:** July 15, 2009, 10:59:31 PM »

Player A : "Do you have any fortresses?"

Player B: "Go Fish!"

BubbleBoy · « **Reply #43 on:** July 15, 2009, 11:00:54 PM »

Quote from: Janissary on July 15, 2009, 10:59:07 PM

Both people can

Well obviously the one going first can, because its his turn.

D-man · « **Reply #44 on:** July 16, 2009, 09:25:45 AM »

But with intro prep phases, he won't have to do it on his turn, because he can do it before his turn. It saves time

News:

Author Topic: Re: A Game Lost Completely due to the Draw (Read 7139 times)

Lamborghini_diablo

Lamborghini_diablo

Lamborghini_diablo

Lamborghini_diablo

Lamborghini_diablo

The Schaef

Lamborghini_diablo