Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Redemption® Online Gaming => Playgroup and Tournament Central => Redemption® Online Official Tournament (ROOT) => Topic started by: Prof Underwood on December 28, 2011, 02:52:41 PM
-
- Players draw 1 card each turn (instead of 3), but also if any player gets to draw from a special ability, then the opponent "may" ALSO draw that many cards.
- If a player decks out then they have to give 1 LS back from their LoR.
- If a player is decked out, then they may NOT make a rescue attempt (unless their opponent has also decked out). This was done in Sept/Oct 2012
- A hero must be in play at the end of owner's previous turn to start a battle.
- A month with NO rule modifications. This was done in Feb/March 2012
- # of GCs and ECs are limited to the # of LSs in the deck.
- Banning of NJ (or maybe NJ and Mayhem)
- Shorter time limit This was done in June/July 2012
- ROOT Restricted (2 Good Dominants and 2 Evil Dominants ONLY) This was done in May/June 2012
- Type 3 (60 card exactly, 6 LS to win, equal offense and defense, T1 deck limitations) This was done in Dec/Jan 2013
- Single elimination style tournament
- Double elimination style tournament
- Up to 2 copies of generic cards allowed in a Type 1 deck
- Best 2 of 3 games using a "between game" sideboard equal to # of LS This was done in Jan/Feb 2013
- "In-Game" sideboard equal to # of LS
-
I detest the first idea. I'd participate (I love ROOT too much to give it up), but I wouldn't enjoy it at all. I'd build a defense heavy deck for it, but I still don't think it would be at all fun. I do love the second idea, and would like to see it first, though I fear it wouldn't change much. The third idea would need to be tweaked to "...unless their opponent has also decked out."
-
QUIT MAKING UP NEW RULES! Ok but honestly will you please let us play with the current rules and quit thinking of horrible new rules that change Redemption into a different game?
-
I'm not in ROOT, but the first rule is terrible. Someone suggested that heroes cannot rescue souls unless they've been in play for one turn, which seems like a good idea.
I have a few ideas of my own that I was supposed to post in my thread a few days ago, but after thinking about them I noticed obvious problems. Hopefully I come up with fixes then post them here.....
-
-T2 month
-"Use any card from any TCG month"
-Type NW
-"Must wear silly hat while playing"
-
-T2 month - I really dislike T2
-"Use any card from any TCG month" - This wouldn't work with RTS
-Type NW - This is the closest idea to feasible, but this style seems to have died a year ago
-"Must wear silly hat while playing" - Cute, but wouldn't really matter
-
I like Alex's "A hero must be in play for at least one turn before he/she may enter battle."
-
I like Alex's "A hero must be in play for at least one turn before he/she may enter battle."
It's actually "A hero must be in play at the end of owner's previous turn to start a rescue attempt." (or maybe battle, don't remember)
-
I like Alex's "A hero must be in play for at least one turn before he/she may enter battle."
It's actually "A hero must be in play at the end of owner's previous turn to start a rescue attempt." (or maybe battle, don't remember)
Turn works much better than battle.
-
It should definitely be "enter" not "start" in my opinion.
-
It should definitely be "enter" not "start" in my opinion.
The way it's currently phrased allows banding out of hand. What's wrong with that?
-
It should definitely be "enter" not "start" in my opinion.
It's so that we can still band to stuff in hand or deck. I don't want to hurt Phillip or normal banding.
-
Uh, Sam and Angel Under the Oak, anybody?
-
Uh, Sam and Angel Under the Oak, anybody?
*Shrug* It's not that good.
-
That just gives Sam decks a pretty big boost I think, at least in comparison to other decks.
-
Uh, Sam and Angel Under the Oak, anybody?
Depends on how that "start" discussion ended. This may not be possible.
-
It just makes Sam and Gen the only reasonable speed decks (maybe). I don't mind that.
-
It just makes Sam and Gen the only reasonable speed decks (maybe). I don't mind that.
I mind that. It centralizes the meta more.
-
It just makes Sam and Gen the only reasonable speed decks (maybe). I don't mind that.
I mind that. It centralizes the meta more.
It doesn't necessarily centralize the meta, it centralizes speed. I'm of the opinion it would not centralize the meta. I think balanced decks would be more widely used because offense would not have as much of a specific advantage.
Gen and Sam would only be usable because Angel, Sam, and Rachel can push characters into battle. That's really not that scary.
-
Speed already is the meta. Knocking TGT and Disciples out of the mix (they're still good, just not as good) keeps Sam and Genesis at the top. Balanced won't have the same boost because speed is still king.
-
Im sure this idea will get shot down but what about a month where all decks must be entirely mono color EC and HC no dual enhancements or anything, or entirely all multi brigade heroes and evil character and enhancements. I think some really interesting strategy might come from that
-
Mono color would be interesting, but it would pose two big problems. First off, brown would rule defense, since Gomer, Uzzah, and Plot are already found in most defenses anyway. It wouldn't be hard to add a few brown battle winners and Wickedness Abounds and call it a day. Even so, it would be a nice change of pace, and might encourage a few more bigger brown defenses. On the offense, I fear that Disciples would rule, though it would help some, stripping them of Passover Hymn, Peter (and 4DC), and Simon the Zealot, along with Pentecost. Disciples and Genesis (even without Joe) would likely rule the meta. I wouldn't mind seeing this though. Although, now that I think about it, TGT would be huge (but be balanced out by the mono defenses). Huh. I'm starting to like this a lot.
-
Mono color would be interesting, but it would pose two big problems. First off, brown would rule defense, since Gomer, Uzzah, and Plot are already found in most defenses anyway. It wouldn't be hard to add a few brown battle winners and Wickedness Abounds and call it a day. Even so, it would be a nice change of pace, and might encourage a few more bigger brown defenses. On the offense, I fear that Disciples would rule, though it would help some, stripping them of Passover Hymn, Peter (and 4DC), and Simon the Zealot, along with Pentecost. Disciples and Genesis (even without Joe) would likely rule the meta. I wouldn't mind seeing this though. Although, now that I think about it, TGT would be huge (but be balanced out by the mono defenses). Huh. I'm starting to like this a lot.
Genesis + Kings of Israel. All the time.
-
Mono color would be interesting, but it would pose two big problems. First off, brown would rule defense, since Gomer, Uzzah, and Plot are already found in most defenses anyway. It wouldn't be hard to add a few brown battle winners and Wickedness Abounds and call it a day. Even so, it would be a nice change of pace, and might encourage a few more bigger brown defenses. On the offense, I fear that Disciples would rule, though it would help some, stripping them of Passover Hymn, Peter (and 4DC), and Simon the Zealot, along with Pentecost. Disciples and Genesis (even without Joe) would likely rule the meta. I wouldn't mind seeing this though. Although, now that I think about it, TGT would be huge (but be balanced out by the mono defenses). Huh. I'm starting to like this a lot.
it because I'm reading your mind :o
-
Monocolor is an interesting idea, but Redemption will of course never make a rule requiring that of decks. I'd like to keep the experimental rules limited to ideas that could actually be applied to the overall game someday if possible.
-
Mono color would be interesting, but it would pose two big problems. First off, brown would rule defense, since Gomer, Uzzah, and Plot are already found in most defenses anyway. It wouldn't be hard to add a few brown battle winners and Wickedness Abounds and call it a day. Even so, it would be a nice change of pace, and might encourage a few more bigger brown defenses. On the offense, I fear that Disciples would rule, though it would help some, stripping them of Passover Hymn, Peter (and 4DC), and Simon the Zealot, along with Pentecost. Disciples and Genesis (even without Joe) would likely rule the meta. I wouldn't mind seeing this though. Although, now that I think about it, TGT would be huge (but be balanced out by the mono defenses). Huh. I'm starting to like this a lot.
Genesis + Kings of Israel. All the time.
Genesis loses their best hero, which makes Disciples more likely, and even then, Disciples take a pretty big hit too.
-
Monocolor is an interesting idea, but Redemption will of course never make a rule requiring that of decks. I'd like to keep the experimental rules limited to ideas that could actually be applied to the overall game someday if possible.
1. If they ever added a monocolor category that could be a rule then.
2. Couldnt we have a ROOT month for pure fun instead of for playtesting?
-
Traditionally, ROOT has never been used to playtest things. This is all new.
-
2. Couldnt we have a ROOT month for pure fun instead of for playtesting?
- A month with NO rule modifications. (This WILL happen sometime this spring)
Traditionally, ROOT has never been used to playtest things. This is all new.
Actually after ROOT had been going on for over a year, people started to get tired of playing the same people using the same decks, and so the idea was raised of trying some different variations to spice things up. So this is just continuing that tradition, only in a way that is more helpful to the community at large :)
-
Here's a serious idea from me: Pan. An CBN, protected from everything Iron Pan, active the entire game.
-
Here's a serious idea from me: Pan. An CBN, protected from everything Iron Pan, active the entire game.
So basically, you would be banning all cards in the game with the words "protect, immune, ignore, draw, and play" on them?
Although that would make for an interesting gameplay, I don't see that ever having the potential to happen. Do you?
-
I'd just like to see more fun variants. CBN protect, immune, etc would still be around. It would make for a deckbuilding challenge, and not be facing the same decks again and again.
-
yeah I know what you mean about variation. Ive played he same brown Isreal kings, destroy my offense defense 4 times. its not fun
-
While we're throwing out ideas for nerfing speed, I think one month should be thrown in that does something of this sort: Ban Mayhem/NJ. No more, no less. Speed decks will have less reason to plow through their deck, the game will always last more than 3 turns, more enhancements/longer battle phases, no FTMs, etc. See what kind of change can happen with AS FEW BANS as possible. I would nominate these two.
If ridiculous ideas like a "Gifts of the Magi" rule and a D1 rule get consideration for nerfing speed, then why not give this a try? There's 10-20 participants in ROOT from month to month. After months of trying all these different ideas, there should be a general consensus about what alternate rules:
1. Nerfed speed without turning the meta into herolite decks WHILE STILL
2. Making the game more fun
At the risk of oversimplification, if changing the rules only accomplishes the first while not accomplishing the second, the rule isn't worth it. Let's find the alternate condition that does both the best.
Put Banning to the scientific test. It would be a waste not to use this opportunity, since it will be easy to compare ideas (all will happen during the same expansion when the meta is theoretically not going to change much). You are already planning on instituting rules that don't exist, so there's no real reason not to do it.
-
I suggest a limit of characters equal to the number of lost souls in deck. applies for both good and evil. so 7 ecs and 7 heroes
-
Ban Mayhem/NJ.
2 problems with this one. Firstly, Rob has already stated that he is strongly opposed to banning. Secondly, I agree with Rob, so I'm not inclined to champion this cause. Banning 1 card (or 2) only leads to banning more.
I suggest a limit of characters equal to the number of lost souls in deck. applies for both good and evil. so 7 ecs and 7 heroes
I'm not really a big fan of this idea personally because I usually like to give players flexibility in deck building. However, I don't see why this couldn't someday become a rule, and it would deal with the power of characters that people like Alex_O has been talking about recently, so I'll add it to the list.
-
Ban Mayhem/NJ.
2 problems with this one. Firstly, Rob has already stated that he is strongly opposed to banning. Secondly, I agree with Rob, so I'm not inclined to champion this cause. Banning 1 card (or 2) only leads to banning more.
If we asked Rob about all of the proposed rule change experiments for the upcoming (and past) months of ROOT, would we not find even one that he would also be "strongly opposed to"? It's an experiment, like the others.
Banning 2 cards doesn't NEED to lead to more. Just hold a vote where all ROOT participants get to assign, say, 10 points to up to 5 different cards, split as desired, with a minimum of 2 cards. Tally up the points and ban the top two. No questions asked, no arguments, no bans beyond the two winners. Then, in true scientific form, compare the results with the other methods.
I'm not saying anything has to be permanent from this. We already know it's not going to happen. But most (if not all) of the other experimental rules are not going to happen either.
-
I'm not saying anything has to be permanent from this. We already know it's not going to happen. But most (if not all) of the other experimental rules are not going to happen either.
The difference is that all of the other experimental rules that we have tried COULD POSSIBLY happen, and in fact many have been talked about pretty seriously even among elders.
Again, I'm just not interested in championing this idea. Maybe now that Chronic Apathy has joined me in ROOT leadership, that perhaps he'll be more inclined to support it.
-
I wonder if Root is the best place to test out all of these rule changes, I mean it is an official catagory and it is ment to help prepare people for tournament play.
-
To an extent I agree with TheHobbit13; I feel like we have to tread lightly with which rule changes we experiment with, because anything too drastic just takes the fun out of the game, in my opinion. However, ROOT is unique in that we never have the opportunity to see a bunch of people from different regions come together to play aside from the T2 Only and Natz, and we can't examine rule changes like these at either of those two events (though I am cooking up an unofficial category for Natz this year - more on this later). It would be a shame to squander the opportunity to look at the way some of these rules changes effect people and games. Also, it's nice to inject a bit of variety into the game; playing the same thing over and over again (even though I'm not using the same deck for every game I play in a season ;D) gets stale. It's for that reason that I'm against the ideas put forth by Red and Somekittens, respectively. Seems like too much for rules that will likely never get implemented (and in the case of Red's suggestion, I'm against anything that so much dresses the same way T2 does).
Regarding the ban suggestion, I'm a little more mixed. I was actually going to suggest this myself yesterday, but I forgot. I've been on the record before in support for banning cards (specifically New Jerusalem [so the people who want it banned will be quiet ::)] and Mayhem (seems to be the easiest way to stop FTM). I'm well aware that Rob and several of the Elders are fully 100% against the idea, but I feel if nothing else, in order for their position to hold true legitimacy (I understand Rob's reasoning, but I don't feel like it holds much weight [not that it matters how much weight I think it holds]), the idea should at least be tested and commented on. I'm in support of having a "Type Ban" category, and I'm working on putting together an unofficial category for Natz this year, much the same way Teams was a couple years ago. Having a month of ROOT with these cards banned would at least allow everyone some insight and be able to see what the pros and cons are regarding gameplay. Now that said, I'll defer to Underwood; if he doesn't see any large need to test the idea (since it really doesn't ever have a shot of being implemented into T1 or T2 permanently), I don't feel so strongly about the issue that I'll push it at all; these are just my thoughts.
-
I feel like we have to tread lightly with which rule changes we experiment with...However, ROOT is unique in that we never have the opportunity to see a bunch of people from different regions come together to play...It would be a shame to squander the opportunity to look at the way some of these rules changes effect people and games.
+1
Regarding the ban suggestion, I'm a little more mixed. I was actually going to suggest this myself yesterday
In support of my fellow ROOT leadership, I'll add it to the list then, and we can talk about it with the others :)
-
Didn't they do Type Ban a while ago?
-
Didn't they do Type Ban a while ago?
I don't remember it being done in ROOT before, but yes a few people on the forum did a Type Ban for a while. I think it died around the same time as Nats '11.
-
That's about what I remember. It seemed to have fizzled after whatever the best deck was got nerfed. I'd be against something like that in ROOT
-
That's about what I remember. It seemed to have fizzled after whatever the best deck was got nerfed. I'd be against something like that in ROOT
You don't remember the massive debate regarding whether or not to ban Sam and Joseph? It went on for about a month before we all got bored with it.
-
I can tell you what happens if we ban mayhem and new jerusalem. Genesis enters God tier.
-
I can tell you what happens if we ban mayhem and new jerusalem. Genesis enters God tier.
I disagree. Genesis searches for New Jerusalem, it's only going to get hurt by that.
-
We played that exact ban list in type ban without the new set and gen dominated. Genesis is far and away the best deck because of the increased power of search.
-
I think it died
Thinking about things that died, reminded me of that novel that was being collectively written here on the forum many years ago. Did that get lost in the purge, or is that still hanging around somewhere. Does anyone remember enough of it to do a search for the thread?
I was trying to remember a name. Remme or something for a first name. Ratzinger or something for a last name, but I just can't quite remember.
-
It should still be around. Look at JSB or Spy's older posts. They were involved.
-
I can tell you what happens if we ban mayhem and new jerusalem. Genesis enters God tier.
That's why I suggested a vote by everyone who would play in that month of ROOT. And there could be a small discussion before the vote where everyone gives reasons to vote for specific cards. That way, you could give the reasons above (with a little more clarification) and the other voters can take that into consideration before voting.
-
I disagree with the way you want to go about it. By doing anything more than banning NJ and Mayhem, you're effectively proving anyone who says that banning cards will just lead to more banning correct.
-
I disagree with the way you want to go about it. By doing anything more than banning NJ and Mayhem, you're effectively proving anyone who says that banning cards will just lead to more banning correct.
I think you have misunderstood my posts. I am suggesting that exactly two cards get banned. I suggested Mayhem and NJ, which Alex said is dumb. But I also said the two cards should be voted on, and I gave a scoring system to do it. That way, the ROOT players themselves determine which cards are banned for the month. There should be a chance for everyone to make public their opinions so that everyone is informed enough to make the best decision. But once the vote is complete, the two bans are final, and there will be no more bans. If it ends up being Joseph and Samuel, so be it.
-
Here's my problem with that though: The only reason I support a month of banning cards is to lend a bit of legitimacy to the whole concept, and hopefully get a "Type Ban" started in two or three years as an official category. In order to do that though, we have to look at what the two most requested cards to be banned are: Mayhem and New Jerusalem. Regardless of what the 15 or so people in ROOT would vote, in a forum wide vote, these two would be the ones banned every time, and I doubt anyone would argue with that. With that in mind, I don't think there's any reason to do this unless those are the two cards that are being banned.
-
you're effectively proving anyone who says that "banning cards will just lead to more banning" correct.
Which of course, we ARE correct, so he's entirely on the right path :)
-
you're effectively proving anyone who says that "banning cards will just lead to more banning" correct.
Which of course, we ARE correct, so he's entirely on the right path :)
Shush.
I actually disagree that that is how it has to work out, it just has to be handled delicately.
-
I don't think "type ban" is the way to go. Set Rotation is what's needed.
-
I'd like to propose a month where at the beginning of the game, any doms that are drawn are shuffled back into the deck as many times as necessary until you have none in your hand to start and Doms are restricted from being played in the first round.
-
That would be impossible to enforce without both players revealing their opening hands, and would lead to quite a bit of mucking about on RTS since a 50 card deck is very likely to have a dom in the opening hand.
-
That would be impossible to enforce without both players revealing their opening hands, and would lead to quite a bit of mucking about on RTS since a 50 card deck is very likely to have a dom in the opening hand.
RTS has a handy "shuffle into deck" feature that would work swimmingly. I'm aware that it would be impossible to enforce in ROOT, however, God forbid we leave things up to trust and an assumption that everyone involved is a good sportsman. It's easy to cheat in RTS as it is, so odds are, anyone who would abuse this would likely be abusing it anyway.
-
You have to draw the line at trusting somewhere. Redemption is the only card game I know of that has major mechanics tied to an honor code, and while it's reasonable to expect honesty about certain things, and it's unreasonable to expect honesty about others.
-
You have to draw the line at trusting somewhere. Redemption is the only card game I know of that has major mechanics tied to an honor code, and while it's reasonable to expect honesty about certain things, and it's unreasonable to expect honesty about others.
Which major mechanics are tied to an honor code exactly? Also, I'm well aware that it would likely be too much in regular play, however, for ROOT, I don't really think it's unreasonable.
-
You have to draw the line at trusting somewhere. Redemption is the only card game I know of that has major mechanics tied to an honor code, and while it's reasonable to expect honesty about certain things, and it's unreasonable to expect honesty about others.
Which major mechanics are tied to an honor code exactly? Also, I'm well aware that it would likely be too much in regular play, however, for ROOT, I don't really think it's unreasonable.
Lost souls perhaps?
-
Playing a LS when it's drawn. From a purely worldly standpoint, the only thing keeping someone from holding a LS in hand is the chance of a judge seeing it there or the opponent seeing his hand before his next draw phase when he could drop it. Since this is a Christian game, it's reasonable to expect that people will play LS's when they draw them, but I think expecting them to mulligan until they have no Doms is a bit much.
-
I like to hide my lost souls in my art pile. :sneek:
-
What a coincidence! I like to put Artifacts in my Land of Bondage!
-
What a coincidence! I like to put Artifacts in my Land of Bondage!
I can't wait to redeem that Unholy Writ!
-
What if the idea was that players "MAY shuffle any doms in their opening hands (by revealing them first) and drawing to replace them, but may NOT play any doms on their 1st turn"?
That way, only doms would be shuffled, and if a player chose to hold on to their doms even though they couldn't play them the 1st turn, they would be allowed to. Would this get rid of the honor system problem?
-
The thing is, as Alex mentioned in the other thread, first round Mayhems aren't the problem, first draw Mayhems are. Even if I have to put off playing it for two or three turns, nine times out of ten, I'm going to get a chance to play my Mayhem within the first third of the game for at least a +5-6 if I draw it. Thus, I don't think simply restricting doms being played in the first turn is enough - you either have to make sure Mayhem cannot be played before the game has begun moving, or you have to nerf Mayhem itself.
-
I don't know that I agree with first round mayhem being a huge problem. The problem with FTM is that player one gets to develop his territory, make an RA, and then gain a huge card advantage before the opponent can do anything but play Guardian and whatever he's able to shed on a single block. It also completely negates the benefit of going second by turning a rescue second/card advantage tradeoff into a rescue second/card disadvantage.
Intro prep still gives a slight edge to the first player, but more or less mitigates FTM by allowing the second player to develop his territory before he can be Mayhem'd. The first turn amnesty allows the second player to be in control of the FTM, which may actually balance the position of going first v. second.
-
I'd like to put 2 rule ideas:
1st - Changing 'in play' - You cannot add it to Battle if used in Battle.
2nd - Modifying Redirect - The Redirected Card (varying if Good/Evil) becomes not only as if it was being used by the EC/Hero, but changes what it hurts. (Ex. FaaMS would change to targetting a GE) and a clear def of cards that cannot be Redirected. (Like Draw, Play Next, etc.)
-
I propose a shorter time limit. There's no reason why a deck should perform better in an online version of an official category than in a live version of the same. If for no other reason than that RTS takes much less time to play than real games with automatic shuffling.
-
I propose a shorter time limit. There's no reason why a deck should perform better in an online version of an official category than in a live version of the same. If for no other reason than that RTS takes much less time to play than real games with automatic shuffling.
Actually I find that RTS games take me longer than live games because I can't see the cards as well and have to click on them all the time to see what they are/do. Also I think it's nice to have at least 1 category out of 7 that gives defensive-heavy decks a chance to succeed :)
However, I also think it's a good suggestion for an alternative rule to try for a month, so I added it to the list.
-
I propose that we play Redemption by the rules of the game with no additions subtractions or edits for at least three months of a year for once please...
-
ROOT is the best mechanism for determining which rules should become "rules of the game." Everyone agrees something needs to change, but not everyone agrees on the solution. Using ROOT to test options makes improving the game much more feasible.
-
I propose that we play Redemption by the rules of the game with no additions subtractions or edits for at least three months of a year for once please...
- A month with NO rule modifications. (This WILL happen sometime this spring)
-
I propose a shorter time limit. There's no reason why a deck should perform better in an online version of an official category than in a live version of the same. If for no other reason than that RTS takes much less time to play than real games with automatic shuffling.
I'm against this suggestion. The 2 hour time limit allows people who want to to use larger decks that would time out in normal tournaments, and I don't think that such decks are used often enough to warrant the time limit. In the meantime, all this would do is reduce the friendly nature of ROOT, since nobody wants a time-out, and anyone who takes a while to make decisions (and there are a few people like that in ROOT) could theoretically be accused of stalling. Additionally, it would just encourage speed decks.
I propose that we play Redemption by the rules of the game with no additions subtractions or edits for at least three months of a year for once please...
I don't think we need three months of this. Honestly, it's a relief to be able to play ROOT without fearing a FTM most of the time.
-
I propose a shorter time limit. There's no reason why a deck should perform better in an online version of an official category than in a live version of the same. If for no other reason than that RTS takes much less time to play than real games with automatic shuffling.
I'm against this suggestion. The 2 hour time limit allows people who want to to use larger decks that would time out in normal tournaments, and I don't think that such decks are used often enough to warrant the time limit. In the meantime, all this would do is reduce the friendly nature of ROOT, since nobody wants a time-out, and anyone who takes a while to make decisions (and there are a few people like that in ROOT) could theoretically be accused of stalling. Additionally, it would just encourage speed decks.
I propose that we play Redemption by the rules of the game with no additions subtractions or edits for at least three months of a year for once please...
I don't think we need three months of this. Honestly, it's a relief to be able to play ROOT without fearing a FTM most of the time.
If I ran this tournament it would be only current rules. If it's an RNRS catagory play it by the proper rules. Not all these jacked up rule modifactions.
-
ROOT gives us the chance to test out possible rule changes. For the community to compete in a form of playtesting. I'm for that.
-
I usually need more time to figure out which cards are where, so longer times are good for people like me.
ROOT gives us the chance to test out possible rule changes. For the community to compete in a form of playtesting. I'm for that.
This. It gives a bit of fun.
-
How about a rule of u can only rescue 1 LS/round but then u can play NJ to an Opponents SoG?
-
How about a rule of u can only rescue 1 LS/round but then u can play NJ to an Opponents SoG?
That might be a bit clunky. How about you can only rescue LS from one source (Heroes, Enhancements, Dominants) per round?
-
What enhancements rescue souls?
-
Primary Objective.
-
Primary Objective.
The player rescues the soul not PO.
-
That's kinda what I said, but it's also stopping NJ, so no SoG/NJ.
I like the idea of 1 LS rescued/round because then Opponent can't slap SoG/NJ down immediately after rescuing a LS to win, which I find quite cheap, I play it when I get both.
-
If I ran this tournament it would be only current rules. If it's an RNRS catagory play it by the proper rules. Not all these jacked up rule modifactions.
To be entirely frank though, you don't run it. Furthermore, from what I can gather, the general community that plays ROOT is generally in favor of experimenting with rule changes (or at least understand and tolerate it). If anyone else who's active in ROOT (or anyone who doesn't play ROOT specifically because of the rule experiments) wants to chime in and voice any concerns they have, feel free. I don't promise that anything will change, since I pretty much let Underwood run ROOT, and I have no idea if using it for rule changes might even be something Rob has asked for. Of course though, hearing feedback from the participants is important. In the meantime though, ROOT will be run the way it's been run since the season started. Bear in mind that Underwood has already promised one month rule-change free, so that's something for you to look forward to.
-
I agree. I like experimenting w/ new rules because I think that some of the current ones are not that good (i.e. Protect becoming a battle-Ender, Ignore not being a battle-Ender, Dom decks etc.)
If u want to have an online tournament w/o rule changes, u can always use Hamachi and I don't think to many people will mind either. But complaining here won't get anyone any further.
-
Primary Objective.
The player rescues the soul not PO.
PO rescues the soul. Just as Dove instructs a player to Discard a card from hand or battle, it's still Dove that's discarding.
-
I use ROOT for practice in case Nationals in a location I can attend. If it's always "exeperiments" Then the practice is worthless. I'm honestly considering sitting out next month if there is another exeperiment.
-
I use ROOT for practice in case Nationals in a location I can attend. If it's always "exeperiments" Then the practice is worthless. I'm honestly considering sitting out next month if there is another exeperiment.
You are aware you can play RTS games outside of ROOT right? With whatever rules you choose?
-
I use ROOT for practice in case Nationals in a location I can attend. If it's always "experiments" Then the practice is worthless.
I understand your point, and it is likely that there will not be "experiments" once we get close to Nats (ie. summer months). However, I disagree that these rule changes make your games worthless for practice. First of all, they are simply a great way to get games against top players from around the country that you probably wouldn't get otherwise. This is an opportunity to see some different kinds of decks than your local playgroup may be running. It also is a way to pick up on some ways of using cards that you may not have thought of yourself.
And as for the rule changes themselves, it can be a good way to test your deck under sub-optimal conditions. Pretend you are playing a speed deck that wants to rescue 1st turn every game and play dominants at will. Well out of your 10 games at Nats, you'll probably have 1 where you don't draw any heroes or dominants on the 1st turn. Can your deck win without making a rescue attempt or playing dominants on the 1st turn? This month is your chance to find out. And pretend that you're NOT playing a deck that depends on that. Then this month's rule change doesn't affect you at all anyway. Either way, it's NOT worthless.
-
I use ROOT for practice in case Nationals in a location I can attend. If it's always "experiments" Then the practice is worthless.
I understand your point, and it is likely that there will not be "experiments" once we get close to Nats (ie. summer months). However, I disagree that these rule changes make your games worthless for practice. First of all, they are simply a great way to get games against top players from around the country that you probably wouldn't get otherwise. This is an opportunity to see some different kinds of decks than your local playgroup may be running. It also is a way to pick up on some ways of using cards that you may not have thought of yourself.
And as for the rule changes themselves, it can be a good way to test your deck under sub-optimal conditions. Pretend you are playing a speed deck that wants to rescue 1st turn every game and play dominants at will. Well out of your 10 games at Nats, you'll probably have 1 where you don't draw any heroes or dominants on the 1st turn. Can your deck win without making a rescue attempt or playing dominants on the 1st turn? This month is your chance to find out. And pretend that you're NOT playing a deck that depends on that. Then this month's rule change doesn't affect you at all anyway. Either way, it's NOT worthless.
I agree with profu. on all these points
-
Elder Dragon Highlander:
100 card minimum, no multiples allowed.
-
Elder Dragon Highlander:
100 card minimum, no multiples allowed.
Do we also have to kill each other after every game? THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!
-
Elder Dragon Highlander:
100 card minimum, no multiples allowed.
Do we also have to kill each other after every game? THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!
Only via beheading...
-
I use ROOT for practice in case Nationals in a location I can attend. If it's always "exeperiments" Then the practice is worthless. I'm honestly considering sitting out next month if there is another exeperiment.
I disagree entirely that the practice is worthless when experiments are used. A lot of the time, they don't even really impact a game that much, and when they do, as Underwood said, it's good to test decks under different conditions, since every experiment we've used thus far could happen in a regular game (more or less). Plus, keep in mind that the reason we're testing a lot of these ideas is to implement at least one of them, quite possibly during this season. Regular play might not even be "regular" if the powers at be make a decision about this in the next four or five months.
-
I suggest that the next tournament be as many rounds as possible. Participation is way up, and even this month with 6 rounds the 3rd place winner only won 1/3 of his games, and everyone not in the top 3 lost at least 3. I know that's not uncommon at tournaments, but I support anything that lessens the likelihood that the winner and 2nd place have never played each other, or other such.
-
I suggest that the next tournament be as many rounds as possible. Participation is way up, and even this month with 6 rounds the 3rd place winner only won 1/3 of his games, and everyone not in the top 3 lost at least 3. I know that's not uncommon at tournaments, but I support anything that lessens the likelihood that the winner and 2nd place have never played each other, or other such.
I think the number of rounds of each month should be directly proportional to what they would be in a normal tournament (minimum of 4 weeks). I dislike having six weeks (even though it allowed me to come back to get third place this month), because it causes situations like the one a couple months ago when there were three people at the top with the same score, all of whom had won against one of those three and lost against the other, and it came down to differential (which actually let me win). I think having more rounds than necessary according to the current rules just overcomplicates things. Now that said, I happen to know that Underwood really enjoys having longer months, and that this next 'month' will likely go to the end of March (6 weeks again).
-
the 3rd place winner only won lost 1/3 of his games
FTFY
As for the number of games, it is actually a balancing game to determine the number of rounds for ROOT. The current number of players regularly participating requires 5 rounds. I'm personally pretty committed to playing 1 more round than is required to make it more likely that the winner has to play the top competition (ie. this month's champion played #2, 3, 4, 7, 13, 19). This makes 6 games, which also works out well to be about a month and a half of time (allowing 2 tournaments every 3 months).
The only way to get more game in would be to either make the tournament last even longer, or to play more than 1 game each week. Both of these ideas seem like they would actually DECREASE participation with ROOT. Many people have a hard time committing to something that lasts longer than a month (since their schedule might be quite different in the future and get in the way). In fact, ROOT traditionally has only been 1 month long, and we're already doing an extended schedule. Making it longer, also makes people have to wait longer before joining the next one. And as for playing multiple games in a week, many people have commented that they felt like they were able to join BECAUSE it was only 1 game a week. If ROOT was a bigger time commitment, it would probably also lose people.
Chronic guessed correctly that the Feb/March ROOT will be going to the end of March. This will be a new record length of 7 weeks (assuming I'm counting the calendar correctly), but I think that is probably the best option because there is a good chance that there will be a lot of players who have spring break during this time and will be unable to get in at least 1 of those games. But since school schedules are different everywhere, it is impossible to plan around that. Therefore, if we make the tournament a bit longer, it will give people more of a chance to come back from missing a week and taking a ghost that week.
However, the following ROOT tournament (April/June) will probably return to 6 weeks long (unless we hit 33 players participating).
-
Idk, it just seems weird that 1st and 2nd have 1 loss, 3rd has 2, and all the rest lost half or more of their games. Perhaps it's because I don't really play in any tournaments below Regional level, which typically has at least 7 rounds.
-
Idk, it just seems weird that 1st and 2nd have 1 loss, 3rd has 2, and all the rest lost half or more of their games.
Actually 4th place also only had 2 losses. And with the number of top level players currently (and typically) participating in ROOT, I'd be surprised if we don't consistently see that many losses most months. Look at the good side....you can lose a couple games and still work your way back up to placing :)
-
Ban Mayhem/NJ.
2 problems with this one. Firstly, Rob has already stated that he is strongly opposed to banning. Secondly, I agree with Rob, so I'm not inclined to champion this cause. Banning 1 card (or 2) only leads to banning more.
If we asked Rob about all of the proposed rule change experiments for the upcoming (and past) months of ROOT, would we not find even one that he would also be "strongly opposed to"? It's an experiment, like the others.
Banning 2 cards doesn't NEED to lead to more. Just hold a vote where all ROOT participants get to assign, say, 10 points to up to 5 different cards, split as desired, with a minimum of 2 cards. Tally up the points and ban the top two. No questions asked, no arguments, no bans beyond the two winners. Then, in true scientific form, compare the results with the other methods.
I'm not saying anything has to be permanent from this. We already know it's not going to happen. But most (if not all) of the other experimental rules are not going to happen either.
This could be a ROOT only rule that could change from month to month. I've seen it done on another CCG that's played online with a slightly different system. Everyone's votes get tallied, everyone has access to the same cards, it's a level field.
You could have it so that no card could be banned in two consecutive months, and with everyone on ROOT having access to the same cards there's no favoritism against those with newer, better cards that keep getting banned. It could move things along and make people think more.
-
I suggest we use a SoS ranking system with top cut.
-
I suggest we use a SoS ranking system with top cut.
I'm also interested in seeing how this would actually work. With a tournament of say 20 people, how many rounds do you do before the "top cut" and how many people make the "top cut"?
The big problem that I see happening is that many who do NOT make the "top cut" would stop playing for the rest of the month which would cause the few people who still wanted to play to simply get ghosted on (which is no fun).
-
I suggest we use a SoS ranking system with top cut.
I don't really think this is really conductive to what ROOT is all about. While I support the idea for the national tournament, I think ROOT differs in a handful of key ways. First off, ROOT is much more community-based than the national tournament is, and I think most of us could pretty much list off most of the players that would make a say, top 8 cut. I think it's going to exclude people, and while at Nats that's might be okay because of the sheer size of it, I don't want to risk someone's feelings getting hurt because they didn't make the cut in a small tournament like this. Plus, as Underwood noted, that would almost certainly encourage ghosting during the last couple weeks of the tournament. I believe at one point in the past, the leaders of ROOT tried splitting people into different "categories" based on skill, and attendance dropped off drastically. Finally, I lost two of my games against strong opponents very early in ROOT last month (Alex and Pol, and I really should have won the latter game ::)), and I still came back to rank third overall for the month. With this many weeks in a month, it's a lot easier to catch up.
-
How any times do I have to mention a consolation bracket before somebody picks up on it ::) I want someone to try this out. If, for one month, you get a lot of people ghosting but got the rest of your concerns about the system address it'd be worth it. If we don't test it out in ROOT it's not likely to get tested, as any event that didn't follow cactus' rules for tournaments could not be official and people wouldn't travel for it, and you need at least a decent sized group to test it out
Edit: And who says they wouldn't play once they're eliminated? What evidence do you have? Do the people at the bottom of the ROOT bracket the last week or do who have no chance of placing skip their game? Why is this any different?
-
How any times do I have to mention a consolation bracket before somebody picks up on it
I picked up on it. I'm just not sure that people would play the games in it.
And who says they wouldn't play once they're eliminated? What evidence do you have?
Did you read Chronic's last post where he mentioned that we tried splitting off the top players before in ROOT, and ended up with WAY more ghosting in both groups?
Do the people at the bottom of the ROOT bracket the last week or do who have no chance of placing skip their game?
Not too much. In fact, I think there was only 1 ghost out of about 10 game the last week of last month's tournament.
-
Saying that they would stop playing would be based on them not having a chance of winning it all, yet when they don't have a shot of winning people don't ghost so there is no reason to think that they would in a new system with exactly the same chance of placing.
-
I understand your confusion, and I can't explain it either. In fact, I was the one who championed the idea of splitting ROOT into 2 groups a long time ago. The top group played a round-robin, and played for RNRS points. The 2nd group played 1 game a week (like the current system) and played for the prize packs. But then major ghosting happened in both groups and we had to drop the experiment.
-
Just try it. We haven't liked about half of the rule experiments but without trying we will never know and I, at least, will continue to not play anything but booster at tournaments. I only do booster because I have a rival, other than that I don't play redemption anymore. i don't like the system thats in place. Now i'm not saying change it just because of me, but it would be nice if we could at least try an alternative.
-
I'd say a final week top cut of 4, with top cut games going best of three. (You'd probably want a stricter time limit). The winners of the first two games would face each other best of three (that's two games in one week, but I think they'll survive.) Third place could be determined by a consolation match.
Everyone else that week could get matched up for a "for fun" game (pretty much what happens to those who have no chance of placing now)
-
I'd say a final week top cut of 4, with top cut games going best of three. (You'd probably want a stricter time limit). The winners of the first two games would face each other best of three (that's two games in one week, but I think they'll survive.)
If there's a top cut of 4, then wouldn't that be 4-6 games in the final week (2-3 against first opp, and 2-3 in the championship). That is a LOT of games to ask of people for 1 week.
-
Has best 2 of 3 with sideboard been done yet? I'm very curious to see if a sideboard can be implemented successfully into Redemption.
-
I'd say a final week top cut of 4, with top cut games going best of three. (You'd probably want a stricter time limit). The winners of the first two games would face each other best of three (that's two games in one week, but I think they'll survive.)
If there's a top cut of 4, then wouldn't that be 4-6 games in the final week (2-3 against first opp, and 2-3 in the championship). That is a LOT of games to ask of people for 1 week.
Maybe it could be spread out into say the first week of the next tournament? I am infavor of top cut for ROOT sounds cool but I would suggest that those who play top cut shouldn't be allowed to change decks in between rounds. I don't like top cut tech matches.
-
Maybe it could be spread out into say the first week of the next tournament?
I'm not in favor of something that causes ROOT to go longer than it already is. If the top cut of 4 would take 2 weeks, then it would have to be the last 2 weeks of the month. And it would still require people to play double or triple the number of games for those 2 weeks. I'm just not sure how feasible that is for people.
those who play top cut shouldn't be allowed to change decks in between rounds.
I'm also not in favor of rules that really can't be enforced. I know there are some already that necessary, but I try not to make more.
Has best 2 of 3 with sideboard been done yet?
No, it might work to do this with just the championship game for a month. Again, I'm trying to avoid people having to play too many games in a week.
-
If people want to win ROOT, they'll put in the extra effort. It's only four people who have to play a few extra games. If they don't want to, then they don't win.
-
Why not have two types of tourneys. 1 Round Robin & the other more bracket style with best 2-out-of-3 match-ups per week, that way you can thin it a little and appease both styles.
-
Why not have two types of tourneys. 1 Round Robin & the other more bracket style with 2-3 games in a week, that way you can thin it a little and appease both styles.
Because they already tried that, and it resulted in a large amount of ghosting.
-
Why not have two types of tourneys. 1 Round Robin & the other more bracket style with 2-3 games in a week, that way you can thin it a little and appease both styles.
Because they already tried that, and it resulted in a large amount of ghosting.
Well that's unfortunate...
-
I may be wrong but it sounded like the ghosting occured because the top players were separated from the rested of the competition. TSE's suggestion wouldn't neccessarily lump all of the top players into one catagory so I say we try it.
-
I may be wrong but it sounded like the ghosting occured because the top players were separated from the rested of the competition. TSE's suggestion wouldn't neccessarily lump all of the top players into one catagory so I say we try it.
I think it would give the people looking for more games an opportunity to have more games, and if you did it on the bracket side then you could have it with a winners and *not-winners bracket
-
If people want to win ROOT, they'll put in the extra effort.
This statement is just plain incorrect. I'm on here as much as anyone, but I'm a college student and extremely busy, and trying to schedule games with two different people (up to three games per person, mind) is going to be a logistical nightmare. I'm as dedicated to winning ROOT as anyone, and even I don't know that it's worth that kind of time investment. Requesting that four people play up to six games in a week just for ROOT borders on absurd.
Maybe it could be spread out into say the first week of the next tournament?
That would still mean that four players would be playing up to four games in the first week of the next month, which isn't much more ideal than six games a week.
-
I'll admit that it has been a long time since we tried the ROOT split thing, and many of the people playing now weren't back then. I'll take these ideas into consideration, and we'll talk about the possibilities of doing something for the April/May ROOT. In fact, there will be a few options for that month's tournament, and I'll be making a poll to allow people to vote on which one they want to try most. It'll be coming in a few weeks, so keep an eye out :)
-
Oh good. I was worried that it would get shot down because ROOT leadership didn't like it.
-
How about a month were players can use Fan-made cards but they have to have at least 10 real cards in their deck (other than LS's) And no fan-made LS's.
How's that for an idea?
-
you could limit it to serious cards that get a 5+ or more in monthly card submission galleries. That way the cards wouldn't be OP but yet still playable.
But who Is going to add all of these cards to there RTS just so they can be played with a few times and then forgotten?
-
How about a month were players can use Fan-made cards but they have to have at least 10 real cards in their deck (other than LS's) And no fan-made LS's.
How's that for an idea?
I think using Fan-made cards would probably be better for a side tournament run exclusively for that purpose rather than ROOT. However, I'm pretty sure that the next tournament won't be running any new variants so that people can get used to the new rules that just came out.
-
Why not have two types of tourneys. 1 Round Robin one Sweedish & the other more bracket style with best 2-out-of-3 match-ups per week, that way you can thin it a little and appease both styles.
Prof is this or something like it still being considered as a possibility?
-
I would probably think of it to be only serious cards but I'm not so sure that I want a +5 because that can cause a lot of cards to be dropped. (Maybe like a +2)
Also, u can just use CEC to add ur cards into RTS.
I was thinking of hosting a tournament like that, but thought I'd suggest it here first, and maybe get some others that would help me w/ the tourney.
-
Prof is this or something like it still being considered as a possibility?
It is possible that someday we'll try another ROOT split with either a "round robin" or "best 2-of-3 bracket" system. But I wouldn't expect it to happen before next fall.
Realistically there are only 2 more ROOTs left in this tournament season. The April/early May one will probably be without any variations to adjust to the new rules. The late May/June one will probably include 1 variation that is chosen by the players in a poll. But I doubt that option would be the most popular of the choices that will be offered. Of course I could be wrong :)
I was thinking of hosting a tournament like that, but thought I'd suggest it here first, and maybe get some others that would help me w/ the tourney.
I think it would be great for you to host that, and see if there's much interest in it. If so, it is possible that we could wrap it into ROOT in the future. We did that with a T2 variation for a while (although I think that died off since then).
-
Yea, I've always wanted to make my idea of a Revelation theme and use it in a tournament. And I'll bet that others would love to do that too. But I'm not sure I could have any prizes... (seeing as I don't have any) but it would be cool to have some backing or have it like that.
I could even suggest having a Fan-set made so people wouldn't have to make some cards on CEC. I might do it next month and see how the idea runs.
(I'm too busy right now to do it.)
-
I also am in favor of trying best 2 out of 3 but i dont see how we can implement a 15 card sideboard into the RTS program without using the honor system?
How would you incorporate a 15 sideboard into the game? and why does it have to be 15?
and my proposed rule change:
All Evil Characters gain TAUNT
If Heros have no access to a LS before battle begins: Evil Characters may attack Opponents Land of Redemption. If attack is successful, holder may take a rescued soul from opponent and place in holder's Land of Redemption.
-
The Taunt rule seems really extreme to me. I'd prefer something more like, "If your opponent has no Lost Souls in play, an evil character may taunt. If Taunt is successful or goes unchallenged, you may place a Lost Soul from your Land of Bondage and place it in opponent's Land of Bondage for two rounds."
-
Is there any consideration of using the Restricted Format for either next ROOT or the one after? Rob suggested he really wanted some tournament hosts to try it, but I know a lot of players are hoping that their hosts won't implement it (understandably, especially for people with only a few tournaments in their area). Since ROOT is free, and has representatives from all around the country, it seems like it would be an ideal place to test it.
-
Is there any consideration of using the Restricted Format for either next ROOT or the one after?
That is a good point. This next ROOT will be with the standard rules to allow people to get used to them. However the following ROOT will have a variation. We were planning on allowing the players to vote on it, however per Rob's wishes, it might be best to just do the Restricted Format and see how it goes. I'll talk with Chronic about it and see what he thinks :)
-
i have a suggestion: make ROOT available for people who can't use RTS to be allowed to play however possible, such as, yahoo im, aim, facebook, skype, or however possible
-
i have a suggestion: make ROOT available for people who can't use RTS to be allowed to play however possible, such as, yahoo im, aim, facebook, skype, or however possible
While we definitely encourage as many people to play as possible, we can't force people to use those programs which make games long and often cumbersome when RTS has been the standard for years. Which means someone using just AIM or similar would have to be forced to forfeit when someone doesn't want to use that program. That wouldn't be fair to anyone.
Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2
-
I think it would be fun to play under the "Type 3" rules for a month. For those who have not seen the thread, Type 3 is a Type 1 version of Type 2. The decks must be a minimum of 60 cards with balanced offence and defense. However, the number of each card in a deck still follows type 1 rules. One AoCP per 50... This would force everyone, including myself to build a new deck from the ground up.
John
-
I added it to the list. Doesn't Type 3 also play to 6 LSs?
-
Has anyone considered the idea Jerome had awhile back about allowing multiple generics in type-1 decks?
-
The idea was to be allowed 2 generics in your first 50 cards and then be allowed to add another generic for every 50 after that. (50 card deck, may have 2 generics... 100 card, 3... 150 card 4)
Also on restricted. Type 3 isn't a min of 60, it's a lock at 60. You cannot have any more or any less. And yes the game is to 6.
-
The idea was to be allowed 2 generics in your first 50 cards and then be allowed to add another generic for every 50 after that. (50 card deck, may have 2 generics... 100 card, 3... 150 card 4)
Also on restricted. Type 3 isn't a min of 60, it's a lock at 60. You cannot have any more or any less. And yes the game is to 6.
I must have misread the thread on T3, I missed the lock on 60 cards. That might make it better... Anyway, I forgot the addition of the extra soul. Also I believe the Dom Cap in T3 is still the number of LS in deck.
-
The idea was to be allowed 2 generics in your first 50 cards and then be allowed to add another generic for every 50 after that. (50 card deck, may have 2 generics... 100 card, 3... 150 card 4)
Also on restricted. Type 3 isn't a min of 60, it's a lock at 60. You cannot have any more or any less. And yes the game is to 6.
I must have misread the thread on T3, I missed the lock on 60 cards. That might make it better... Anyway, I forgot the addition of the extra soul. Also I believe the Dom Cap in T3 is still the number of LS in deck.
The Dom cap is a global rule, so it does apply to type 3 the same way it does to all other types.
-
i propose being able to have up to 2 copies of any generics in a t1 deck
-
Here's an rule change idea, limit the number of characters you can put in play in a turn to 3... =)
or limit the number of characters you can put in play to 3 except by special ability in a turn...
-
is this still a live thread?
-
is this still a live thread?
Yes it is. I consider all ideas that are posted here. I don't guarantee that we'll do them all, but as you can see from the opening post, we have done a lot of them :)
-
I like the idea that you cant attack with a character the first turn its put into play, unless an ability lets you of course.
-
I like the idea that you cant attack with a character the first turn its put into play, unless an ability lets you of course.
I like this idea a lot but would like it more if we banned TGT from that tourney style. I am afraid preblock blowing up of EC's would be to easy.
By ability do u banding? so i could band from hand still or r u talking about not even allowing someone to band in unless they have been in play for a turn?
Another idea I have would be negate all FBTN characters and ignore CBI CBP and CBN so everything is negatable
-
Here's an rule change idea, limit the number of characters you can put in play in a turn to 3... =)
or limit the number of characters you can put in play to 3 except by special ability in a turn...
*bump
I still like my idea... and maybe throw in RTS's idea....
-
A spin off of that might be you can only have 6 heroes in a territory at a time, and 6 evil characters as well.
-
or as many as you have LS out.(allowing you to pick one up if rescue is succesful.
-
Have a one day tourney (possible 2 day), like in real life. Sign in 8 am, register decklist, pairings, 4-5 rounds, ect.
-
Have a one day tourney (possible 2 day), like in real life. Sign in 8 am, register decklist, pairings, 4-5 rounds, ect.
I'm actually thinking about doing something like this in July since I'm not sure if there's enough time for another full tournament of ROOT before Nats (assuming that we start next week).
-
i have a suggestion: make ROOT available for people who can't use RTS to be allowed to play however possible, such as, yahoo im, aim, facebook, skype, or however possible
While we definitely encourage as many people to play as possible, we can't force people to use those programs which make games long and often cumbersome when RTS has been the standard for years. Which means someone using just AIM or similar would have to be forced to forfeit when someone doesn't want to use that program. That wouldn't be fair to anyone.
Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2
im just trying to suggest how to make it more open to people
-
i can't seem to reply to the main ROOT thread for some reason so i am replying to this one. I just downloaded the RTS and Hamachi and i want in on ROOT and online redemption gaming.