Author Topic: my thoughts on type 1 multi (Read 5049 times)

EYES_on_ZION · « **on:** May 08, 2012, 05:53:26 PM »

Iam sitting here making a muti deck for my friend who i jsut taught the game to who is doing really well and i was thinking about how to maybe improve type 1 multiplayer. I dont know about anybody else and their play group but the people who have learned under me ive taught to play very small defense, maybe 5 defensive cards at the most, and run a hero heavy banding offence with speed and they are hands down the best. The issue now is that our type one multi winners that place all have very low defense and are running either straight disciple, tgt anything, and straight red. Anybody who doesnt run those pretty much get stomped. Like i said i dont know how other playgroups are but what if the rule of balance that is enforced on type 2 was applied to type 1 multi (Same amount of evil to good ratio) would it make it better? What are your thoughts and if this is too drastic of a change is a playgroup allowed to agree and impliment this rule for their play group? Thanks

STAMP · « **Reply #1 on:** May 08, 2012, 05:58:19 PM »

Type 1 Multiplayer should really have the category name changed to "100-meter dash".

EYES_on_ZION · « **Reply #2 on:** May 08, 2012, 06:03:29 PM »

Hahahahahah amen to that! That is exectly what it is about now.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #3 on:** May 08, 2012, 06:28:46 PM »

I think making all decks have matching numbers of good and evil cards for all categories would be a good idea. Even Booster Draft is affected by people who pull all offense and little-to-no defense.

EYES_on_ZION · « **Reply #4 on:** May 08, 2012, 06:48:25 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher link=to :-[pic=30574.msg479841#msg479841 date=1336516126

I think making all decks have matching numbers of good and evil cards for all categories would be a good idea. Even Booster Draft is affected by people who pull all offense and little-to-no defense.

yea that is true. Booster is a little more competitive though and i like how there is no way you can run the same deck as your competition. The thing i fear though is if these rules were set in stone tournament time would increase because the fact that the hst will have to check every single deck and mutiple decks.

Redoubter · « **Reply #5 on:** May 08, 2012, 06:48:58 PM »

Quote from: EYES_on_ZION on May 08, 2012, 05:53:26 PM

Like i said i dont know how other playgroups are but what if the rule of balance that is enforced on type 2 was applied to type 1 multi (Same amount of evil to good ratio) would it make it better? What are your thoughts and if this is too drastic of a change is a playgroup allowed to agree and impliment this rule for their play group? Thanks

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on May 08, 2012, 06:28:46 PM

I think making all decks have matching numbers of good and evil cards for all categories would be a good idea. Even Booster Draft is affected by people who pull all offense and little-to-no defense.

I invite you to take a look at Type 3. It is a blend of T1 and T2 with a balance of good and evil, play to 6, and a required deck size of 60. It resolves a lot of issues with T1 that people complain about, especially new players. We haven't tested the multiplayer on it yet, but 2P has been working really well to reign in speed and make the battle phase actually interactive.

Master KChief · « **Reply #6 on:** May 08, 2012, 06:56:56 PM »

I submit instead of throwing every possible solution that detriments speed into type 3 that you instead test each variable separately first. I'm of a strong belief that just 1/2 good and evil required would do a lot to balance the meta.

Redoubter · « **Reply #7 on:** May 08, 2012, 07:01:11 PM »

Quote from: Master KChief on May 08, 2012, 06:56:56 PM

I submit instead of throwing every possible solution that detriments speed into type 3 that you instead test each variable separately first. I'm of a strong belief that just 1/2 good and evil required would do a lot to balance the meta.

Every possible solution would actually involve penalties for decking out, requiring the ratio of souls to normal cards to be perfectly 6:1, and penalizing out-of-draw-phase draw abilities. The suggestions we had do none of that. The good-evil equality is well tested from T2, and has worked really well, and the 6 souls to win reduces the effect of luck.

Master KChief · « **Reply #8 on:** May 08, 2012, 07:03:50 PM »

I'm asking, have you tried testing every variable separately so you can get an objective perspective on which variables are possibly working better than others? Some of those might not even be necessary.

Redoubter · « **Reply #9 on:** May 08, 2012, 07:07:52 PM »

Quote from: Master KChief on May 08, 2012, 07:03:50 PM

I'm asking, have you tried testing every variable separately so you can get an objective perspective on which variables are possibly working better than others? Some of those might not even be necessary.

Our purpose is not to kill Speed. We didn't embark on this quest to stop it at all, just make T1 in general more fun to play. These were all things that we agreed would make T1 better. It wasn't to counter any strategy.

Master KChief · « **Reply #10 on:** May 08, 2012, 07:15:31 PM »

How do these rule changes make T1 better and more fun to play?

EYES_on_ZION · « **Reply #11 on:** May 08, 2012, 07:16:37 PM »

Quote from: Redoubter on May 08, 2012, 06:48:58 PM

Quote from: EYES_on_ZION on May 08, 2012, 05:53:26 PM
Like i said i dont know how other playgroups are but what if the rule of balance that is enforced on type 2 was applied to type 1 multi (Same amount of evil to good ratio) would it make it better? What are your thoughts and if this is too drastic of a change is a playgroup allowed to agree and impliment this rule for their play group? Thanks

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on May 08, 2012, 06:28:46 PM
I think making all decks have matching numbers of good and evil cards for all categories would be a good idea. Even Booster Draft is affected by people who pull all offense and little-to-no defense.

I invite you to take a look at Type 3. It is a blend of T1 and T2 with a balance of good and evil, play to 6, and a required deck size of 60. It resolves a lot of issues with T1 that people complain about, especially new players. We haven't tested the multiplayer on it yet, but 2P has been working really well to reign in speed and make the battle phase actually interactive.

i like that. Is type 3 an actually an option or is it something that you are working on because i really like the soul rule so that people arent just playing for sog +nj as much and the balance. I dont really know about the whole 60 card rule though because that takes away from deck building freedom in my opinion.

Chris · « **Reply #12 on:** May 08, 2012, 07:23:14 PM »

Quote from: Master KChief on May 08, 2012, 07:15:31 PM

How do these rule changes make T1 better and more fun to play?

They don't, necessarily, however, they could still be a lot of fun, and I'm excited to see how viable they are. We won't know unless we test them.

Redoubter · « **Reply #13 on:** May 08, 2012, 07:25:11 PM »

Quote from: EYES_on_ZION on May 08, 2012, 07:16:37 PM

i like that. Is type 3 an actually an option or is it something that you are working on because i really like the soul rule so that people arent just playing for sog +nj as much and the balance. I dont really know about the whole 60 card rule though because that takes away from deck building freedom in my opinion.

Not an official category, just something we're playtesting right now

Quote from: Chris on May 08, 2012, 07:23:14 PM

Quote from: Master KChief on May 08, 2012, 07:15:31 PM
How do these rule changes make T1 better and more fun to play?

They don't, necessarily, however, they could still be a lot of fun, and I'm excited to see how viable they are. We won't know unless we test them.

This exactly. For me, I hate the race to 5 souls and the lack of actual battles. Many others shared my sentiment, and preferred T2. We took some leads from T2 and made something on its own and so far it has made things more fun than T1. But as Chris said, it is an experiment, and we're trying to figure out if they work as intended.

Master KChief · « **Reply #14 on:** May 08, 2012, 07:30:48 PM »

And I'm suggesting instead of making 3 important changes to how T1 is played, instead test 1 at a time to observe if 'fun' is still attainable with the least number of critical changes possible. Personally I'm finding the 3 together overkill.

Redoubter · « **Reply #15 on:** May 08, 2012, 07:32:24 PM »

Quote from: Master KChief on May 08, 2012, 07:30:48 PM

And I'm suggesting instead of making 3 important changes to how T1 is played, instead test 1 at a time to observe if 'fun' is still attainable with the least number of critical changes possible.

I don't know why you're so concerned about the method of our playtesting

We know what we preferred in a game type, and we're testing out those changes. I never said our definitions of fun have to agree, did I?

Master KChief · « **Reply #16 on:** May 08, 2012, 07:37:10 PM »

Because it makes no sense to change more than is actually necessary. Whether our definitions of fun agree or not is irrelevant to what I'm suggesting.

Asahel24601 · « **Reply #17 on:** May 08, 2012, 10:06:31 PM »

Sorry, I have to ask. How is strait red speed?

Redoubter · « **Reply #18 on:** May 08, 2012, 11:30:45 PM »

Quote from: Asahel24601 on May 08, 2012, 10:06:31 PM

Sorry, I have to ask. How is strait red speed?

I don't think that the original post referred to Red as Speed, just that it is one of the meta offenses due to its banding. More he was referring to the fact that defenses consist of so few cards and cookie-cutter offenses, and that's all that wins tournaments.

I brought up speed later when I was referring to T3. I caused the confusion

EYES_on_ZION · « **Reply #19 on:** May 09, 2012, 12:28:42 PM »

Quote from: Asahel24601 on May 08, 2012, 10:06:31 PM

Sorry, I have to ask. How is strait red speed?

Haha i understand why you are asking. Well i liked running them because i refused to run tgt and ive wrecked every time i played them. Basically their banding chains and centurians hurt stand alone alot. As far as draw ability ishmaiah the gibeonite will at least get you one draw every time you send him in, peter + drachma coin, and mustering for war. It doesnt draw as much but i play iam holy and target whoever i know is running stand alone and then go into a chain with one of the centurians and attack that person.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #20 on:** May 09, 2012, 03:50:28 PM »

I agree with MKC. I think we should just make all Type 1 decks have equal good and bad and see if that makes a significant enough change. No offense, but I am not interested in learning or hosting a new type.

Red Wing · « **Reply #21 on:** May 09, 2012, 04:14:39 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on May 09, 2012, 03:50:28 PM

I agree with MKC. I think we should just make all Type 1 decks have equal good and bad and see if that makes a significant enough change. No offense, but I am not interested in learning or hosting a new type.

I disagree. I don't want T1 to become a mini T2.

Master KChief · « **Reply #22 on:** May 09, 2012, 05:02:13 PM »

Quote from: Red Wing on May 09, 2012, 04:14:39 PM

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on May 09, 2012, 03:50:28 PM
I agree with MKC. I think we should just make all Type 1 decks have equal good and bad and see if that makes a significant enough change. No offense, but I am not interested in learning or hosting a new type.
I disagree. I don't want T1 to become a mini T2.

I don't either. Which is one of the reasons I was proposing doing only 1 rule change at a time in an effort to make it still marginally different from T2.

EYES_on_ZION · « **Reply #23 on:** May 10, 2012, 09:40:28 AM »

I disagree with making type 1 single any different becuase honestly it is competitive compared to earlier years but im talking about type 1 multiplayer. I just dont really like how it is played at all. I like playing type 1 single but like type 2mutiplayer.

Wings of Music · « **Reply #24 on:** May 10, 2012, 10:31:09 AM »

If you change the deck building rules of T1MP then it's no longer T1MP, it's type-something else multiplayer. The whole idea of multiplayer is to use the same deck building rules that you would for two player and apply them to a multiplayer game. Type one single player needs some changes (not major ones IMO but some definitely something to ding up speed) whatever is used to ding up speed in Type 1 two player would carry over to multiplayer if it's a deck building rule and would kill two birds with one stone.

Another thing about multi-player. Defense will never be helpful in multi-player outside of a few auto-blockers. If the opponent can't get past your defense he'll attack another guy and probably get past the other guys defense, if that happens then it means that there's one less soul in play for you to rescue. Generally you want people to make an RA against you in multiplayer because they won't be rescuing any of the lost souls that you have access to.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #25 on:** May 10, 2012, 05:16:05 PM »

Multi will always be like this due to the nature of Redemption. Strategically not blocking is nearly as important as rescuing, and if you spend half your time intentionally giving up souls, why put a lot of defense in your deck?

EYES_on_ZION · « **Reply #26 on:** May 11, 2012, 08:53:25 AM »

Valid points have been made and in the end i do feel it will never change but i do see where some of you are coming from. I believe that if the rule of balance was applied you would be forced to play defense rather than forfeiting souls because you would probably have defense in your hand and obviously we cant be as aggressive on offense because of the rule.

Wings of Music · « **Reply #27 on:** May 11, 2012, 11:26:33 AM »

The thing is this. Let's say I am forced to add more evil characters into my deck, as I player I would actually be more inclined to just discard them or hold them in hand than actually use them.

Chris · « **Reply #28 on:** May 11, 2012, 04:23:54 PM »

I've long hated multi (Greeson can best attest to my reasons why

), because I've found that it's more based on luck than 2P is, and an RLK destroys any level of skill the category has. I play it from time to time (generally when there's no alternative, though now that I've picked up T2MP, I'll probably never play T1MP ever again), but I rarely enjoy myself, even when I'm winning, because it's so stressful for me.

On the subject of T3, the idea isn't just to fix problems with T1, and I don't think that's ever been entirely the point (though it is certainly part of it). The other idea is to simply add more variety into the game. Forcing balance between good and evil cards may fix a lot of the problems we have right now, but it's also not excessively different, and the category risks simply turning into T1.5. It just so happens that those of us who are most interested in playtesting T3 have a fondness for specific rules, so that's what we're toying around with right now.

Master KChief · « **Reply #29 on:** May 11, 2012, 04:35:43 PM »

Type 3: fondness
Type 4: fix Type 1

Chris · « **Reply #30 on:** May 11, 2012, 04:51:05 PM »

Hey, everyone has had opportunities to jump in and give suggestions, but only a handful of people have actually put any effort into forming ideas. I think most people agree that banning cards is the easiest way to "fix" T1, which was why Type Ban was created and tested long before people started playtesting the ideas proposed in the current version of T3. So no, Type Ban was made to "fix" T1, T3 was made for fondness. I can't tell if the problem is because multiple ideas have been proposed instead of just one, or because we're calling it "Type 3".

Master KChief · « **Reply #31 on:** May 11, 2012, 05:37:53 PM »

The problem is if you sell it as a Type 1 with 'fun' rules it just gets lumped in with the million other 'fun' variations proposed and becomes the flavor of the week.

Also, most people do not agree banning cards is the way to fix Type 1.

Chris · « **Reply #32 on:** May 11, 2012, 05:42:32 PM »

Quote from: Master KChief on May 11, 2012, 05:37:53 PM

The problem is if you sell it as a Type 1 with 'fun' rules it just gets lumped in with the million other 'fun' variations proposed and becomes the flavor of the week.

Also, most people do not agree banning cards is the way to fix Type 1.

Oh, it's entirely possible that it will get lumped in with the million other fun variations proposed. The difference is that this one has more backing than a lot of variants have had in the past, which gives it the extra chance to become more popular. I didn't say the best way to fix Type 1, I said the easiest, which, if the majority of people disagree, I'd love to know why.

Master KChief · « **Reply #33 on:** May 11, 2012, 06:56:11 PM »

I thought the purpose of Type 3 wasn't to fix Type 1.

Rawrlolsauce! · « **Reply #34 on:** May 11, 2012, 07:24:05 PM »

I'm still waiting on Type 1 Objectives

Drrek · « **Reply #35 on:** May 11, 2012, 09:42:59 PM »

Quote from: Master KChief on May 11, 2012, 06:56:11 PM

I thought the purpose of Type 3 wasn't to fix Type 1.

It depends on what your definition of fix is.

EYES_on_ZION · « **Reply #36 on:** May 13, 2012, 04:41:49 PM »

Quote from: Chris on May 11, 2012, 04:23:54 PM

I've long hated multi (Greeson can best attest to my reasons why ), because I've found that it's more based on luck than 2P is, and an RLK destroys any level of skill the category has. I play it from time to time (generally when there's no alternative, though now that I've picked up T2MP, I'll probably never play T1MP ever again), but I rarely enjoy myself, even when I'm winning, because it's so stressful for me.

On the subject of T3, the idea isn't just to fix problems with T1, and I don't think that's ever been entirely the point (though it is certainly part of it). The other idea is to simply add more variety into the game. Forcing balance between good and evil cards may fix a lot of the problems we have right now, but it's also not excessively different, and the category risks simply turning into T1.5. It just so happens that those of us who are most interested in playtesting T3 have a fondness for specific rules, so that's what we're toying around with right now.

yea i agree. Once i played t2mp i never looked back because t2mp isnt fun or competitive at all. The most fun i had in t1mp recently was yesterday and that is because four of our type 2 players couldnt come to our state tournament so i had to strip my deck and make a type 1 muti out of genesis GENESIS!!! and i still placed second even though genesis is terrible in t1mp compared to tgt stuff

Wings of Music · « **Reply #37 on:** May 13, 2012, 06:55:13 PM »

Ironically enough, Genesis is one of the few T1MP offenses that can get away with defense since all the Genesis Egyptians do is draw.

EYES_on_ZION · « **Reply #38 on:** May 19, 2012, 02:38:55 AM »

Quote from: Wings of Music on May 13, 2012, 06:55:13 PM

Ironically enough, Genesis is one of the few T1MP offenses that can get away with defense since all the Genesis Egyptians do is draw.

haha Yes this is true. Trust me, I found out the hard way.

News:

Author Topic: my thoughts on type 1 multi (Read 5049 times)

EYES_on_ZION

EYES_on_ZION

EYES_on_ZION

EYES_on_ZION

Chris

EYES_on_ZION

EYES_on_ZION

EYES_on_ZION

Chris

Chris

Chris

Rawrlolsauce!

EYES_on_ZION

EYES_on_ZION