Author Topic: New Jerusalem is not going to be banned at this time. (Read 17766 times)

The Guardian · « **on:** July 08, 2009, 04:13:15 AM »

On behalf of Rob and the other playtesters, I would like to make a more or less official announcement regarding New Jerusalem.

Due to the many people who have respectfully requested for Rob to consider banning New Jerusalem as well as the multiple discussions regarding "the loss of hard-fought battles," Rob opened up a discussion amongst the playtesters on the possibility of banning New Jerusalem from Type 1 play for a trial period during next tournament season to see what effect it would have on the game. After a week-long discussion, a consensus was reached that for the time being, New Jerusalem will not be banned: Redemption will continue to have no banned cards. Although it would take too long to repost the entire discussion, here are some of the major reasons.

1. We want to see what effect TexP will have on the game before making such a drastic change.

2. We are concerned that the loss of New Jerusalem would cause many more games to time out, which we believe is not good for the game. The game is intended to be slightly weighted in favor of the offense.

3. Decks would be weighted even more heavily towards offense, especially in T1 MP. No one enjoys watching a defenseless T1 MP deck give away free LS, and banning NJ would likely make even more players sacrifice defensive space so they would be sure to have enough offense to get 4 non-dominant rescues.

These are the primary reasons we believe it is in the best interest for the game to continue with New Jerusalem. This is not to say that there will never be a time when NJ or another card will be banned, but now is not that time. If there continues to be a general consensus that banning New Jerusalem would improve the game, we will again discuss the possibility of doing a trial period of banning NJ from Type 1.

It was the desire of Rob for players to know that he does pay attention when people make respectful and well supported requests to consider making a change, and that is why he asked me to summarize our discussion.

I encourage everyone to keep making suggestions on ways the game can be improved!

Justin
The Guardian

Master KChief · « **Reply #1 on:** July 08, 2009, 04:34:48 AM »

the game is already slightly weighted in favor of offense with the sole inclusion of son of god. nj makes it more than slightly weighted in favor of the offense...almost by 50% of the total score needed.

i wouldnt be too afraid of games timing out either...more offensive cards would be used to offset the loss of nj. which i feel strengthens the meta as a whole, as many have been complaining about the degradation of actual battles nowadays anyways...which i feel is where the game should be focusing at.

crustpope · « **Reply #2 on:** July 08, 2009, 07:26:52 AM »

Glad to hear that it has been considered. Thanks for the update

Hedgehogman · « **Reply #3 on:** July 08, 2009, 07:49:39 AM »

Since this is something that I've pushed for several times in the past, I'm happy to see that Rob is at least putting it up for discussion. Even if it isn't banned in T1 immediately, the fact that Rob is willing to take suggestions like that from the players is a very cool thing.

Korunks · « **Reply #4 on:** July 08, 2009, 09:37:31 AM »

I want to thank Rob for his community involvement, and the play tester's also for this decision. The fact that Redemption currently has no banned cards is one of the main Reason's I came back to playing it after a few years off. I have played Magic the Gathering extensively as well as other CCG's and am thoroughly tired of banned cards. It takes a lot of fun out of a game when I have new people learning the game, they see this awesome card and think its cool. Only to find out that its banned in "official" tournaments. I stopped going to MTG tournaments because of that, and I would hate to add Redemption tournaments to that list. Especially as I am working hard to begin consistent tournament hosting here in MD and spread the game. If the game is gonna fundamentally change by banning cards and other unpopular decisions, that defeats a lot of the work I am trying to accomplish.

adamfincher · « **Reply #5 on:** July 08, 2009, 09:52:20 AM »

if you are a hater of dominants rescuing souls, just play altar of ahaz....

TimMierz · « **Reply #6 on:** July 08, 2009, 09:59:56 AM »

Quote from: adamfincher on July 08, 2009, 09:52:20 AM

if you are a hater of dominants rescuing souls, just play altar of ahaz....

If you can draw it in time. If you never lose a rescue. If you want to tie up your precious artifact slot the entire time.

As has been said, I'm glad this was discussed, although the outcome wasn't what I'd hope for.

Don't mean to stir things up, but one of the points of reasoning bothered me...

Quote

No one enjoys watching a defenseless T1 MP deck give away free LS

But we enjoy watching someone play a practically unstoppable two-card combo for two free LSs in every single deck?

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #7 on:** July 08, 2009, 10:54:16 AM »

I also thank Rob and the playtesters for considering this issue as well as the concerns of the community in general. I would like to know whether it was also discussed as to raising the LS count to win in T1 to 6 (and the LS min/deck to

. I think that this would be a terriffic way to solve the problem of NJ without banning any cards.

Soundman2 · « **Reply #8 on:** July 08, 2009, 01:05:48 PM »

for all the people who are for banning NJ think about this:

how many times has it saved you? I can think of 5 times this year!

think of is weaknesses has to be played with SoG, can't rescue the N.T. only, */4, or the women only lost souls you can't use it with your opponents SoG.

if any card needs to be band its GoYS

[modbreak=The Schaef]This post was better before you edited it.[/modbreak]

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #9 on:** July 08, 2009, 01:24:55 PM »

Quote from: Master KChief on July 08, 2009, 04:34:48 AM

the game is already slightly weighted in favor of offense with the sole inclusion of son of god. nj makes it more than slightly weighted in favor of the offense...almost by 50% of the total score needed.

i wouldnt be too afraid of games timing out either...more offensive cards would be used to offset the loss of nj. which i feel strengthens the meta as a whole, as many have been complaining about the degradation of actual battles nowadays anyways...which i feel is where the game should be focusing at.

I understand what your saying but I think that the lack of New Jerusalem would actually hurt the battle phase rather than help it. Think about it, if decks became increasingly more offensive the battle phase would diminish because more of the power offensive cards are being used and less of the defensive cards.

If you ban New Jerusalem you have other cards as well or it won't do anything. If New Jerusalem is banned it makes the other power cards more powerful. There goes a way to stop Garden Tomb or Jacob RTC for a turn or two.

Master KChief · « **Reply #10 on:** July 08, 2009, 02:59:27 PM »

Quote from: TheHobbit13 on July 08, 2009, 01:24:55 PM

Quote from: Master KChief on July 08, 2009, 04:34:48 AM
the game is already slightly weighted in favor of offense with the sole inclusion of son of god. nj makes it more than slightly weighted in favor of the offense...almost by 50% of the total score needed.

i wouldnt be too afraid of games timing out either...more offensive cards would be used to offset the loss of nj. which i feel strengthens the meta as a whole, as many have been complaining about the degradation of actual battles nowadays anyways...which i feel is where the game should be focusing at.

I understand what your saying but I think that the lack of New Jerusalem would actually hurt the battle phase rather than help it. Think about it, if decks became increasingly more offensive the battle phase would diminish because more of the power offensive cards are being used and less of the defensive cards.

If you ban New Jerusalem you have other cards as well or it won't do anything. If New Jerusalem is banned it makes the other power cards more powerful. There goes a way to stop Garden Tomb or Jacob RTC for a turn or two.

even if people start using more tgt's and jacob/rtc's, thats still leaps and bounds better than just getting an automatic lost soul for free. so yes, in this case, tgt/rtc/prov/etc. would be far better for the meta because its much much much slower to play successfully than nj.

i also dont see any lack of playability with tgt/rtc/prov now anyways; they're all played pretty heavily as it is. i think your beef is with those cards, not nj.

The Guardian · « **Reply #11 on:** July 08, 2009, 03:21:58 PM »

MKC,

I appreciate your and Tim's concern that NJ is the ultimate "LS for a non-battle" card. In some sense, if no one ever thought anything could be improved about the game, that might be more disconcerting

Let's see what TexP does though and then see where we're at. (I might add that I also believe there's still untapped strategies from the past few sets as well.)

Regarding the "Play to 6, min deck 60" idea, this is something I've been a proponent of for years...I might even have been the one who originally suggested it back on the old forum, I don't remember... (Also, didn't STAMP run a small online tournament testing that idea also?) The one major issue with that is then you have to increase the game length to avoid time-outs, so the issue would be how much longer to make the games.

redemption99 · « **Reply #12 on:** July 08, 2009, 03:26:53 PM »

I like that idea as well as it allows me to put more cards for offense/defense in my deck and slows down speed decks a little. =D

Ironica · « **Reply #13 on:** July 08, 2009, 03:36:50 PM »

Considering that all of my decks are 63 cards, I wouldn't mind the change

.

Master KChief · « **Reply #14 on:** July 08, 2009, 03:51:45 PM »

i agree upping the lost souls needed to win up to 6 and deck sizes up to at least 60 would work well in lessening the effects of nj while still going by the no-banning policy.

Soundman2 · « **Reply #15 on:** July 08, 2009, 04:08:41 PM »

all of you who say "its 2 free LS" Realize that it go both ways don't you?

TimMierz · « **Reply #16 on:** July 08, 2009, 04:17:08 PM »

Quote from: Soundman2 on July 08, 2009, 04:08:41 PM

all of you who say "its 2 free LS" Realize that it go both ways don't you?

We do. We're not saying we dislike the card because our opponents use it. We dislike it because its existence is not only practically a requirement for any deck, but causes less fun to occur. Most of us don't play because we enjoy winning, we play because we enjoy playing.

crustpope · « **Reply #17 on:** July 08, 2009, 09:51:21 PM »

Quote from: TimMierz on July 08, 2009, 04:17:08 PM

We do. We're not saying we dislike the card because our opponents use it. We dislike it because its existence is not only practically a requirement for any deck, but causes less fun to occur. Most of us don't play because we enjoy winning, we play because we enjoy playing.

This pretty much sums up my thoughts exactly. Removing NJ, expecially from type 1 would make games alot more interesting. "Do I add more offense battle winners to compensate for the fact that acouple of my battle winners will probably be negated/thwarted?" "Do I add more defense in the hopes of really locking my opponent out of LS's by compensating for all their battle winners?" Do I add OTHER dominants (Doubt?, Grapes?, GotL?)that currently dont have much use because a deck is pretty strapped for space as it is?

I am beginning to wonder if with grapes coming out, will NJ lose a spot in some decks because people want to use grapes and they take out NJ due to space? That means your SoG can much more easily be used defensively because you dont have to wait for NJ?

I think waiting to see what TxP does to the game is a wise decision at this point.

soul seeker · « **Reply #18 on:** July 08, 2009, 10:48:43 PM »

Coming from a slightly different perspective. I play another game that currently had no other banned figures...until...today. And I'm slightly bummed about it. Was General Obi Wan powerful, indeed...did he deserve to get banned..I didn't think so. What I fear now is the slippery slope of banning more Star Wars figures.

How it translates to redemption?

What about other powerful or "broken" cards? Are those getting banned too? Why is banning always the first cry of the "people" (which by the way..Justin said consensus and I don't think there is one on NJ-->I think it's more like 50/50 on this subject)? Why not limit the amount of Dominants in a deck the way LS, Forts, Sites, etc. are limited in deck building? I don't like the entire Deck building rules to change for T1 but I like that better than any banned cards.

Personally, I'm happy with the decision. Of course, I'm really happy that the creator is still keeping a pulse on the game and it's players too.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #19 on:** July 09, 2009, 12:37:11 AM »

I think that there are far more people in favor of the (better) idea of increasing deck size and LS's to win than banning NJ.

Master KChief · « **Reply #20 on:** July 09, 2009, 12:46:22 AM »

banning nj or upping lost souls needed to win is pretty much the same thing, so i dont care either way it goes, as long as one of those are implemented.

in regards to kenobi, thats the first time i've heard of a figure being banned in any figures game. i guess i just kind of assumed only ccg's would implement bans...haha guess it extends to figs as well. which kenobi got banned?

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #21 on:** July 09, 2009, 01:16:09 AM »

It may have pretty much the same result if you're looking at it only from the anti-NJ standpoint, but each has different ramifications for the game as a whole. Banning would have mostly negative, I believe, and upping would have mostly positive.

The Guardian · « **Reply #22 on:** July 09, 2009, 01:30:08 AM »

How much longer should T1 games go then do you guys think? 5 minutes? 10 minutes?

Arch Angel · « **Reply #23 on:** July 09, 2009, 01:36:01 AM »

I think if LS numbers were upped then you'd need to account for at least 1-3 more battle per game, so maybe a 10-15 minute increase would suffice?

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #24 on:** July 09, 2009, 01:36:45 AM »

Quote from: The Guardian on July 09, 2009, 01:30:08 AM

How much longer should T1 games go then do you guys think? 5 minutes? 10 minutes?

I think an hour would be fine.

News:

Author Topic: New Jerusalem is not going to be banned at this time. (Read 17766 times)

TheHobbit13

Ironica