Author Topic: Follow Up to Rob's "Rotation" Announcement  (Read 1730 times)

Offline matts3376

  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 8
    • -
    • Southeast Region
Re: Follow Up to Rob's "Rotation" Announcement
« Reply #25 on: September 14, 2021, 09:18:55 PM »
0
Just an honest question from someone who hasn't been at a tournament in a very long time - do you feel that the classic category may become obsolete? I would think that players would use essentially the same decks between (the new) regular T1-2P and T1-2P classic with maybe a few tweaks. Either way, cards from older sets won't receive a ton of play. If the plan is to move on from producing older cards altogether that does make sense, though. But in my mind a classic category in which only classic (scroll box) cards can be used would maybe get more play than one where all cards are fair game? I could certainly be wrong.

Offline Red Wing

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2361
  • Set rotation shill
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: Follow Up to Rob's "Rotation" Announcement
« Reply #26 on: September 14, 2021, 10:02:07 PM »
+2
Just an honest question from someone who hasn't been at a tournament in a very long time - do you feel that the classic category may become obsolete? I would think that players would use essentially the same decks between (the new) regular T1-2P and T1-2P classic with maybe a few tweaks. Either way, cards from older sets won't receive a ton of play. If the plan is to move on from producing older cards altogether that does make sense, though. But in my mind a classic category in which only classic (scroll box) cards can be used would maybe get more play than one where all cards are fair game? I could certainly be wrong.
The only thing keeping classic from being obsolete is the ability to also use new cards. I don't think many people would be interested in a category that just replays the meta from 2012.
Kansas City Discord: discord.gg/2ypYg6m

Offline Watchman

  • Tournament Host
  • *****
  • Posts: 2436
  • Your Turn Games Owner
    • -
    • Southeast Region
    • Your Turn Games
Re: Follow Up to Rob's "Rotation" Announcement
« Reply #27 on: September 14, 2021, 10:02:33 PM »
+1
@matts3376 If that happened then none of the classic builds would have Reserve access. Additionally, this would surely make classic obsolete since all of the cards would be old, outdated, and simply no longer viable as a stand alone category. CCGs need regular expansions to survive, improve upon the game, and continue to make it fun and challenging. If none of the newer sets would be included with the classic cards then it would cause the death of the classic cards. Newer cards tends to refresh the older cards and attempts to make them playable again and adds an element of new combos and challenges (ie Rahab from CoW makes Scarlet Line CBN, Foreign Exiles seeks out Raiderís Camp and interacts with it, Woman with Child searches for A Child is Born, etc).
« Last Edit: September 14, 2021, 10:04:44 PM by Watchman »
Redemption is Here! Visit Your Turn Games today!

Offline matts3376

  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 8
    • -
    • Southeast Region
Re: Follow Up to Rob's "Rotation" Announcement
« Reply #28 on: September 14, 2021, 10:44:56 PM »
0
@matts3376 If that happened then none of the classic builds would have Reserve access. Additionally, this would surely make classic obsolete since all of the cards would be old, outdated, and simply no longer viable as a stand alone category. CCGs need regular expansions to survive, improve upon the game, and continue to make it fun and challenging. If none of the newer sets would be included with the classic cards then it would cause the death of the classic cards. Newer cards tends to refresh the older cards and attempts to make them playable again and adds an element of new combos and challenges (ie Rahab from CoW makes Scarlet Line CBN, Foreign Exiles seeks out Raiderís Camp and interacts with it, Woman with Child searches for A Child is Born, etc).

Understood! I'm not familiar enough with the newer cards to see those connections being made, but that makes sense.

Offline jbeers285

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3370
  • bravo
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Follow Up to Rob's "Rotation" Announcement
« Reply #29 on: September 16, 2021, 10:48:22 AM »
+2
What are the positives and negatives that have been seen with a 2 and 3 turn reserve restriction?

I initially feel strongly against restricting reserve access at all and my gut reaction says if it has to happen, then 1 turn should be the maximum.  That said I haven't been active this last year and I have not tested the restrictions so I canít say for sure.

I would like to know a little more about why this is a consideration and what testing has shown.

JMM is a modern day prophet

Offline jhendrix6426

  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 52
    • -
    • Southeast Region
    • The Threshing Floor Podcast
Re: Follow Up to Rob's "Rotation" Announcement
« Reply #30 on: September 17, 2021, 08:19:56 AM »
0
Have you guys given any thought to restricting access to battle phase only during the turn restrictions? Seems like no reserve access will hurt quite a few of the defensive plays that equip weapons from reserve and such.

Offline Watchman

  • Tournament Host
  • *****
  • Posts: 2436
  • Your Turn Games Owner
    • -
    • Southeast Region
    • Your Turn Games
Re: Follow Up to Rob's "Rotation" Announcement
« Reply #31 on: September 17, 2021, 09:39:54 AM »
+1
I am in complete disagreement that there should be no reserve access no matter how many # of turns.  For one, there have been so many cards made that access the reserve, and Iím sure so many more that will be in GoC, that it is quite counterintuitive to now restrict reserve access. Another thing is it is yet something else to have to keep track of (many times players have trouble remembering who ent first, let alone how many turns have passed to now access the reserve).  I would be more in favor of some kind of intro prep phase, like there currently is in Teams play, than a flat rule that restricts reserve access. 
Redemption is Here! Visit Your Turn Games today!

Offline Crashfach2002

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2966
    • -
    • East Central Region
Re: Follow Up to Rob's "Rotation" Announcement
« Reply #32 on: September 17, 2021, 04:21:15 PM »
0
So I feel it would be good to flesh this out a little bit as long as we can be kind in the way we approach it, so EVERYONE please be mindful of words chosen in the text.   ;) :)

I am in complete disagreement that there should be no reserve access no matter how many # of turns.  For one, there have been so many cards made that access the reserve, and Iím sure so many more that will be in GoC, that it is quite counterintuitive to now restrict reserve access.

I would like to have this expanded upon honestly.  While I do agree that having cards that are geared to do one thing, and then not letting them do that one thing feels bad.  But yet we already have a bunch of cards that search deck, draw cards, etc and have a bunch of counters that try to stop us from doing those things both in battle and outside of battle (via TC cards, etc), and are also being told we don't have enough or they aren't strong enough.  So while a game rule certainly "feels" different, how truly different is it than creating "truly effective" counters (which apparently some feel hasn't been done yet)?  So is creating somewhat broken counters to slow down reserve access is preferable, even if they prove ineffective, I guess is the question.

This is why I believe the proposed Reserve access change would significantly benefit the game.  This change has the same vibe as the previous change which I assume is no accident.  Restricting access to a location where players currently (and for good reason) put some of their best cards is another way of reducing the power of going first to a more reasonable level.

These changes force players to ask questions when building their decks.  Can I afford to put this card in my Reserve and not have access to it for at least 1 turn?  Can I risk putting this card in my deck and not have a way to quickly search it out (or be restricted from doing so or punished for doing so?  This is what makes strategy games attractive. 

I like the thoughts here, and somewhat think along the lines of "is making players think about their deck building a bad thing?"  I know when given the thought to consider restricting the reserve at all became a thought process, I honestly hated the idea.  Upon testing no reserve access just a little bit I have noticed honestly that it probably wouldn't be a bad thing, but also being mindful of how much is too much.  I realize I am not a "highly competitive" player or "top tier" deck builder, but I have long thought creating a "losing situation" (by getting enough lost souls in play to lose the game) was kind of silly.  I do also realize that creating the consistency that allowed your deck to "go off" was worth that "risk."  But is trying to change that mentality a bad thing?

Another thing is it is yet something else to have to keep track of (many times players have trouble remembering who ent first, let alone how many turns have passed to now access the reserve).

This is certainly a concern that people have had and something that has been brought up while discussing things.  But, I will say one round isn't really that hard to keep up with.  Whoever goes first has access to their reserve at the same time they get to draw 3 for the first time, so that shouldn't be "too difficult" to keep up with.

I would be more in favor of some kind of intro prep phase, like there currently is in Teams play, than a flat rule that restricts reserve access. 

I have had this option mentioned as well, but I guess the question to that is does it really change the way people currently deck build?  As I said, I'm just trying to think out loud and see how people feel about these things?  Is there really a perfect answer to anything we ask?  If we say everything stays the same but we just rotate, does that fix the "whoever goes first wins" problem we have?  Does having people adjust how they deck build fix that?  Does restricting the reserve for a round change anything?  Does that and coin flip to determine who goes first create new problems that we didn't know existed?  So many questions that really we might not have an answer for, so again just thinking out loud to have a cordial conversation.  :)

Offline Sean

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3917
    • -
    • East Central Region
Re: Follow Up to Rob's "Rotation" Announcement
« Reply #33 on: September 17, 2021, 07:28:28 PM »
0
The issue I see with creating a game rule that overrules special abilities is that it is the opposite of how the game usually works.  The normal interaction between game rules and special abilities is that the special abilities break the normal state that the rules create.  Creating a rule that stops a special ability is essentially just an exception that is al, but it is exceptions that can cause confusion for knowing how to play correctly. 

For balance purposes, I think restricting reserve access for the 1st turn is a great idea.  It gives each player a chance to get their bearings so I think it would create more even gameplay.  I think an intro prep phase could accomplish the same thing though.
May you prosper greatly!
Daniel 4:1b

Offline Watchman

  • Tournament Host
  • *****
  • Posts: 2436
  • Your Turn Games Owner
    • -
    • Southeast Region
    • Your Turn Games
Re: Follow Up to Rob's "Rotation" Announcement
« Reply #34 on: September 17, 2021, 09:04:53 PM »
+1
@Crashfach I understand the purpose (sort of) but I just donít see how, at this point, it will really help anything. 

For example, what is the point of creating a reserve if not to be used how ever effectively it can be?  What is the point of creating a ton of cards from RoJ to GoC that access the reserve, and several cards from PoC to GoC that have star abilities that access the reserve and are virtually limited to the opening draw 8 and subsequent draw 3 when many of those will be dead cards in the opening hand?  What will happen to stars that simply want to get things set up for your future turns, like topdecking a hero from Reserve and drawing it on your first draw, or hurting an opponent, such as discard a good card from a reserve?  All of these would be dead in the opening hand. That simply doesnít make sense to me. To me, adding an additional game rule about when something can or canít be accessed is more cumbersome than just allowing the reserve to be tapped in opening hand but not allowing a rescue/BC that turn, which is truly the biggest issue when it comes to the speed of this game.  The game would be more intuitive and flow so much better with access to the reserve at any time (as it is now), but adding an intro prep phase that helps get things, such as future rescuers, future blockers, counters to your opponents, etc. set up makes more sense to me and will help serve to accomplish the speed issue.

Imagine teaching the game to someone and they want to use star abilities in the opening hand that access reserves and you have to tell them something like ďOh those donít work in the opening hand. Iím sorry you canít use them now. Itís too bad you couldnít have used them in your next few turns, which probably wonít matter by then anyway.Ē  What do you think their reaction will be? 
« Last Edit: September 17, 2021, 09:12:11 PM by Watchman »
Redemption is Here! Visit Your Turn Games today!

Offline Reth

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1149
    • LFG
    • East Central Region
Re: Follow Up to Rob's "Rotation" Announcement
« Reply #35 on: September 18, 2021, 05:39:58 AM »
0
I currently (still) see it the same way like others (Watchman etc.) have already stated above: Increasing complexity/non-intuitivity of learning curve (Star abilities that are dead in opening hand when they could target reserve). Several to lots of cards being much less useful and maybe won't see much or any play again etc. So ATM this for me feels like a drawback for the game hurting it at several different places at once, hence I'd not recommend it being introduced (yet).

Why did I say (yet) above:
Since there are already new things introduced like the coin flip or similar to define who goes first - what about to look at the impacts of this change for one season or so to see how this will work out (especially in terms of deck building when bringing souls out first does no longer guarantee a game start)? So introducing other changes (like reserve restriction, additional pre-game prep phase or whatsoever) at a later point in time (while encouraging people to try out these things meanwhile)? Also maybe we/someone comes up with another idea which might be incorporated easier into the game having the same effect...

Offline jbeers285

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3370
  • bravo
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Follow Up to Rob's "Rotation" Announcement
« Reply #36 on: September 20, 2021, 01:48:09 PM »
0
I know the thread kind of got jumped on after my initial post and I didnít intend for that to happen.

Having been on the inside for a number of conversations in the past, I can honestly say some of my opinions where stated to strongly and not with the humility I wish I would have walked with. I am aiming not to fall into that trap here and I donít want others to fall into that place either.

I know Gabe and the leadership team mean it when they say ďWe want what is best for the game.Ē

With all due respect, I am still left wanting to understand what the reasons are for considering a reserve restriction and some information on how restricting reserve access is meeting that goal?

There may be some excellent reasons I am missing and this may be a great move for the game. Im just looking for some real clarification.

JMM is a modern day prophet

Offline Master Q

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1111
  • Onward...
    • -
    • Midwest Region
Re: Follow Up to Rob's "Rotation" Announcement
« Reply #37 on: September 20, 2021, 05:40:34 PM »
+1
As a huge proponent of set rotation, I am so happy to see it finally! Even if it no longer affects me...

I would assume the Reserve restriction would be to try and put some kind of damper on the uber-consistency of decks these days. Having cards that are never dead but are essentially always available is pretty strong.

But the way the Reserve was initially set up as a mechanic lent itself to this very problem somewhere down the line. Trying to put something as minut as a turn limit on it changes SO much and is so unintuitive that, realistically, I can't picture it working smoothly.

Or is this not the reason for this Reserve discussion?
If you were to go on a trip... where would you like to go?

Offline The Guardian

  • Playtester, Redemption Elder
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12338
  • The Stars are coming out...
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: Follow Up to Rob's "Rotation" Announcement
« Reply #38 on: September 20, 2021, 06:44:10 PM »
0
I have taken on a more limited role with playtesting this past year so I have not been involved with all of the Reserve discussions, but from my understanding, it has mostly to do with what Master Q mentioned -- the consistency with which decks could have explosive first turns. I don't know how much you guys followed the tournament scene this past season, but there was a deck archetype that could essentially win* on turn 1 if the opponent didn't have any "pre-game" disruption (i.e. * abilities or LS abilities) or the correct dominant in hand (usually Woes, DoN or CotK was needed and sometimes having just 1 wasn't enough).

A very large part of the consistency the deck enjoyed was having combo pieces or combo tutors in the Reserve that enabled the player to combo off on turn 1.

There's no doubt the Reserve has drifted from its original goal (to give players access to "sideboard" cards to help them in specific bad match-ups), and there's really no turning back from that at this point. However, I believe the idea behind a 1 turn restriction is to lessen the probability of games being essentially decided on turn 1. Granted that will still happen sometimes, but I do believe a restriction will deepen the strategy behind what is put in Reserve and what players want in the main deck.

*They were not actual turn 1 wins, but the combo simply put the opponent so far behind, there was probably a less than 2% chance of them winning.
Fortress Alstad
Have you checked the REG?
Have you looked it up in ORCID?

Offline Kevinthedude

  • Tournament Host
  • *****
  • Posts: 1834
  • Yo
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: Follow Up to Rob's "Rotation" Announcement
« Reply #39 on: September 20, 2021, 06:56:35 PM »
+4
I acknowledge the problem being addressed but I agree with many of the other posters here that a hard restriction like this, regardless of how many turns it is (though first turn is way better than 2+), feels arbitrary. This is a card pool problem rather than an inherent rules problem and thus the proper solution should be altering the card pool through banning and rotation. Specifically Remnant deserves a ban the most followed at some distance by Endless Treasures and Exiles. There are some other notable offenders such as the Rezin package but Remnant/Exiles/Treasures are largely archetype agnostic and thus far more problematic.

The long term solution is to stop printing cards that access the Reserve in an unhealthily consistent and broad way until the next rotation can clear out the earliest reserve access cards that haven't been banned by then. I've heard the argument that its not that simple to stop printing strong Reserve access since it would leave newer sets DoA compared to older ones that still have it, but it I don't think this is an unavoidable problem. Scaling back over time and printing strong counter cards rather than baking restrict effects into the game are both ways to offset this. I also am very favorable towards some kind of intro prep or go first attack restriction in order to give the second player an opportunity to realize their extra draw phase before the first battle as a way of combating go first advantage.

Offline Hedgehogman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 704
  • In America!!
    • -
    • East Central Region
Re: Follow Up to Rob's "Rotation" Announcement
« Reply #40 on: November 20, 2021, 11:18:53 PM »
0
 Wow.

I haven't played in over a decade, but I decided to poke around my old stomping grounds, and come to find out all my thousands and thousands of cards are now worthless. Feels bad man. :(
I'll prove I'm not a loser, by challenging you to a children's card game!

Offline jhendrix6426

  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 52
    • -
    • Southeast Region
    • The Threshing Floor Podcast
Re: Follow Up to Rob's "Rotation" Announcement
« Reply #41 on: November 21, 2021, 09:04:36 AM »
+4
First off, welcome back to Redemption! I think itís fair to feel that way in your situation. In fact, Iím sure many will feel that way if they check in on the game after a long hiatus. But the hard truth is that your statement encapsulates part of the issue that I think sometimes gets overlooked when rotation is mentioned. For this game to still exist and be an ongoing thing a decade later, Cactus and Rob have to see financial investment into the game by players. Rotation helps facilitate that in a major way and really helps ensure the game has the chance to be around for a much longer time into the future. Current active players are who Cactus has to build their product for and rotation isnít as much of an issue for current players, as the trade off is more than worth it to clean up card interactions and such. Rotation also makes the game more appealing and easier for newer players to jump in as the wording on abilities are more standardized and the interactions are less ambiguous.

Losing the value of older cards is a bummer, but it was necessary to promote the long term future of the game. To help with this, the game offers constructed formats of the latest set, LoC, at tournaments and plans to do the same for GoC, which releases phase 1 in early 2022. These formats allow players to focus on only the latest set to get up and running and the constructed formats feature additional promos and such, so they are a great way to buy into the latest product and play competitively while building up a collection of rotation format cards.

Offline EmJayBee83

  • Tournament Host
  • *****
  • Posts: 5437
  • Ha! It's funny because the squirrel gets dead.
    • -
    • East Central Region
    • mjb Games
Re: Follow Up to Rob's "Rotation" Announcement
« Reply #42 on: November 21, 2021, 06:44:27 PM »
0
I haven't played in over a decade, but I decided to poke around my old stomping grounds, and come to find out all my thousands and thousands of cards are now worthless. Feels bad man. :(

What do you mean worthless?

Classic cards are still legal for most tournaments.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2021, 06:46:29 PM by EmJayBee83 »

Offline Hedgehogman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 704
  • In America!!
    • -
    • East Central Region
Re: Follow Up to Rob's "Rotation" Announcement
« Reply #43 on: November 22, 2021, 12:13:05 AM »
0
 I was under the impression that the old cards (pre new card design) were no longer going to be legal at all, outside of some new "classic" format that probably very few people will play. Is that not correct?

 Seeing as how even old versions of reprinted cards will not be legal, I can't use my old good cards even if they get reprinted. I can't even sell them, because nobody will want illegal cards. That stings.

 I understand the impossibility of balancing every single card for 25 years. Long term it's a good call. It just really hoses people like me who played the game from 1997 to 2010. I just can't help but feel a bit sad.
I'll prove I'm not a loser, by challenging you to a children's card game!

Offline Crashfach2002

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2966
    • -
    • East Central Region
Re: Follow Up to Rob's "Rotation" Announcement
« Reply #44 on: November 22, 2021, 09:46:14 AM »
0
I was under the impression that the old cards (pre new card design) were no longer going to be legal at all, outside of some new "classic" format that probably very few people will play. Is that not correct?

I would be surprised if most newer or younger playgroups didn't run more classic than rotation because most "long term players" like me can practically give kids with no money these classic cards for little to nothing, so it wouldn't make sense to run "rotation" when they don't have that.  So I believe you are underestimating young and new players that have access to these cards.

Seeing as how even old versions of reprinted cards will not be legal, I can't use my old good cards even if they get reprinted. I can't even sell them, because nobody will want illegal cards. That stings.

Again, not illegal unless you try to go to a "rotation" tournament, so just don't do that.  Plus reprinted old cards doesn't do anything to the ones you have except make a different version.  New versions replacing older ones is something some games do, not this one.

I understand the impossibility of balancing every single card for 25 years. Long term it's a good call. It just really hoses people like me who played the game from 1997 to 2010. I just can't help but feel a bit sad.

It certainly stings at first, but when you take into consideration the first two parts it isn't that bad, and as you admitted it is good for the game long term.  So find some people close to you who wants to play some classic with the cards you have, enjoy yourself, and even have some tournaments.  If/when you are ready to start collecting "rotation" cards there are plenty of people willing to help.  :)