What would your solution be to balance TRM?

SWCCG game play discussion.
arebelspy
Member
Posts: 16721
Joined: July 14th, 2005, 4:45 pm
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Re: What would your solution be to balance TRM?

Post by arebelspy »

Corran wrote:
June 10th, 2020, 12:21 am
I have a P-RII format TRM deck on GEMP. I lose every game I play with it, sometimes by a lot. Throne Room isn't dominant in every format, and there should be a "Good Cards" deck at any given time.
:keithface



User avatar
Hunter
World Champion
World Champion
Posts: 14927
Joined: February 10th, 2003, 3:27 am

Re: What would your solution be to balance TRM?

Post by Hunter »

For my own good, I'm gonna make a conscious effort to not look in (much less post in) this thread with any regularity.

But just real quick-like:
Hayes wrote:
June 9th, 2020, 2:12 pm
In of itself, there is nothing imbalanced about TRM. Other decks are capable of giving up 0 icons as well.
Yeah...giving up 0 icons was never the problem.
Corran wrote:I’ve said this before, and people smarter than me told me I was wrong, but I would change battleground rules so that any location where both sides had presence And/or force icons was a battleground. This would disincentivize players from relying on twixes for activation.
It would be a disincentive. But probably not a large enough one to push them off using the twixes anyway. They'd still use them, they'd just have to end up defending them more often in games. That does sound like a positive to me, but you could probably accomplish that with a smaller change (and one that doesn't cause as much collateral damage). Just change Coward & Mirror so that they don't protect you at your own locations, only the opponent's. Taking your Twixes won't help them satisfy Battle Order, but at least the drains there won't be cancelled by a Defensive Shield. This might be a compromise that Twix lovers could accept. (They're less likely to accept the twixes becoming legit battlegrounds.)

If you're wondering what I mean by "collateral damage" I'm talking about instances where you would have to create exceptions for your rule, because even though the location fits your criteria, you definitely still don't want it suddenly becoming a battleground. Things like sites under the Hoth Energy Shield. The Senate. Dagobah: Training Area. etc.

The_Emp
Booster Pack
Booster Pack
Posts: 141
Joined: December 3rd, 2017, 5:32 pm
GEMP Username: The_Emp

Re: What would your solution be to balance TRM?

Post by The_Emp »

stephengascrub wrote:
June 10th, 2020, 12:06 am
Throne Room won 51% of its games in the OCS in May. Legend won 64% of its games. Both of these had large enough sample sizes (50+ games) to where the results are reliable.

When TRM is winning over 10% less games then Legend, it probably doesn’t need to be fixed. Instead, the problem is people don’t like the deck. Well guess what, I don’t like OA or No Idea. I don’t enjoy playing them or against them, but think decks like that are key to the game’s health. So are decks like TRM.


I think Throne Room is fine as is, but if you want to hurt the deck make it so you can’t play Wokling (v). First turn force is important, and the ability to retrieve a lightsaber is far from trivial.

If you make Throne Room unplayable or ban it, you’re going to get a lot of unhappy people. And I’m not just talking about your run of the mill players like me. There are good players who are involved in the game who would probably also be upset if the card was just blanked or banned. And I don’t think it needs to be. It’s been around since the beginning of the game. So have Elis and Nabrun. Monnok and Grimtaash have been almost as long.

Edit: TRM itself isn’t the problem, it’s the critical mass of good virtual characters, ships, and interrupts you can put in this deck.
Yeah I'm going to try and redirect us back on topic as I think you might misunderstand my original intent of the post. I agree with everything you are saying. I'm referring to thoughts and considerations after a reset. The original point of my question to everyone is to spark ideas and solutions regarding the conundrum D&D always says they run into when we move the starting point back to the end of Decipher. It is cards like Wesa & Speak with the Jedi Council that throw a wrench into their design considerations. Also the other main part is docking bays as the dominant activation platform with the effects that boost activation when controlling them and not getting back to the "docking bay war days". Hope that helps.

Jedicon
Enhanced Product
Enhanced Product
Posts: 744
Joined: June 28th, 2012, 2:06 am

Re: What would your solution be to balance TRM?

Post by Jedicon »

The_Emp wrote:
June 10th, 2020, 4:33 pm
stephengascrub wrote:
June 10th, 2020, 12:06 am
Throne Room won 51% of its games in the OCS in May. Legend won 64% of its games. Both of these had large enough sample sizes (50+ games) to where the results are reliable.

When TRM is winning over 10% less games then Legend, it probably doesn’t need to be fixed. Instead, the problem is people don’t like the deck. Well guess what, I don’t like OA or No Idea. I don’t enjoy playing them or against them, but think decks like that are key to the game’s health. So are decks like TRM.


I think Throne Room is fine as is, but if you want to hurt the deck make it so you can’t play Wokling (v). First turn force is important, and the ability to retrieve a lightsaber is far from trivial.

If you make Throne Room unplayable or ban it, you’re going to get a lot of unhappy people. And I’m not just talking about your run of the mill players like me. There are good players who are involved in the game who would probably also be upset if the card was just blanked or banned. And I don’t think it needs to be. It’s been around since the beginning of the game. So have Elis and Nabrun. Monnok and Grimtaash have been almost as long.

Edit: TRM itself isn’t the problem, it’s the critical mass of good virtual characters, ships, and interrupts you can put in this deck.
Yeah I'm going to try and redirect us back on topic as I think you might misunderstand my original intent of the post. I agree with everything you are saying. I'm referring to thoughts and considerations after a reset. The original point of my question to everyone is to spark ideas and solutions regarding the conundrum D&D always says they run into when we move the starting point back to the end of Decipher. It is cards like Wesa & Speak with the Jedi Council that throw a wrench into their design considerations. Also the other main part is docking bays as the dominant activation platform with the effects that boost activation when controlling them and not getting back to the "docking bay war days". Hope that helps.
I would much prefer someone activating more because they occupy/control a location than just a table full of twixes.

Nutritious
Reflections Pack
Reflections Pack
Posts: 155
Joined: February 23rd, 2006, 9:20 am
Location: Sacramento
GEMP Username: Nutritious

Re: What would your solution be to balance TRM?

Post by Nutritious »

I had this discussion with someone recently. My thought was expanding the utility of ATMDv so that it works with other decktypes besides just Emp build could help a bit. For example, being able to deploy an alien leader instead would make it useful for a lot more decks.

rsersen
Booster Box
Booster Box
Posts: 1693
Joined: January 28th, 2017, 3:42 pm
Location: Hanover, PA
GEMP Username: rsersen
Contact:

Re: What would your solution be to balance TRM?

Post by rsersen »

Nutritious wrote:
June 19th, 2020, 11:47 am
I had this discussion with someone recently. My thought was expanding the utility of ATMDv so that it works with other decktypes besides just Emp build could help a bit. For example, being able to deploy an alien leader instead would make it useful for a lot more decks.
I kind of like that, and in particular could see that really helping Court vs TRM. You probably don't start Jabba just because the risk of a T1 Rey or Anakin is too great, and now your scum puller is dead, and probably overflowed with a saber.

But Xizor, maybe? Gets you wipe activation, can maybe run Xizor's Bounty to protect him (but even then, T1 Rey/Anakin aren't drawing destiny anyway, so less risk). If he survives, then you get Jabba, Scum, and maybe someone else. Now you've got a decent AC stack before LS's T2 attack.
arebelspy wrote:
May 13th, 2020, 10:16 pm
Agree with Ryan.
Image

Image

User avatar
stephengascrub
Member
Posts: 1465
Joined: April 15th, 2011, 11:17 pm
Location: Georgia
GEMP Username: Polymers55

Re: What would your solution be to balance TRM?

Post by stephengascrub »

I kind of like the idea. Maybe...

“Deploy a non-Vader, leader to your site if yavin 4: throne room...”

This would give a lot of decks that want a better matchup against TRM some more utility.

Edit: I’m not sure how I feel about this card. If it were to be something seriously considered, I’d definitely be on the fence. I think things that push people towards a more even split between mains platforms are good, but this type of card could potentially tilt some matchups against TRM too much.
Last edited by stephengascrub on June 19th, 2020, 7:15 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Stephen M.
Dagobah Region

Image

Image



-Team The Bad Batch

Jedicon
Enhanced Product
Enhanced Product
Posts: 744
Joined: June 28th, 2012, 2:06 am

Re: What would your solution be to balance TRM?

Post by Jedicon »

For Court, being able to start a character still gives you some options if they come after you turn 1, as you are probably still starting Wipe which gives you 1 force for barrier, stunning leader, etc.

User avatar
stephengascrub
Member
Posts: 1465
Joined: April 15th, 2011, 11:17 pm
Location: Georgia
GEMP Username: Polymers55

Re: What would your solution be to balance TRM?

Post by stephengascrub »

I’m not sure you attack Court on turn 0 anymore. If they barrier your character, and then counter with two additional aliens/droids and you’re sad.

Having an additional character, and let’s say it’s Xizor because your opponent is smart, it’s a real gamble.

TRM gets 5 force on turn 1. You throw down Rey or Anakin. If your battle is canceled and they respond with Jabba and Greedo you’re looking at:

16 power (!) + destiny
to your 4/5 power +no weapon swing+ no destiny.

Even if we give you Anakin and say your opponent draws a 2, that’s 18 to 5. You’re taking 5 overflow and losing your dude. That’s not good. With Rey this is 7 overflow.

Tldl, I’m glad I’m not on design. Cards like this could be totally fine. They could also be too good.
Stephen M.
Dagobah Region

Image

Image



-Team The Bad Batch

AdmiralMotti89
Reflections Gold
Reflections Gold
Posts: 2015
Joined: February 28th, 2016, 3:38 pm
Location: Nebraska, USA

Re: What would your solution be to balance TRM?

Post by AdmiralMotti89 »

rsersen wrote:
June 19th, 2020, 11:59 am
Nutritious wrote:
June 19th, 2020, 11:47 am
I had this discussion with someone recently. My thought was expanding the utility of ATMDv so that it works with other decktypes besides just Emp build could help a bit. For example, being able to deploy an alien leader instead would make it useful for a lot more decks.
I kind of like that, and in particular could see that really helping Court vs TRM. You probably don't start Jabba just because the risk of a T1 Rey or Anakin is too great, and now your scum puller is dead, and probably overflowed with a saber.

But Xizor, maybe? Gets you wipe activation, can maybe run Xizor's Bounty to protect him (but even then, T1 Rey/Anakin aren't drawing destiny anyway, so less risk). If he survives, then you get Jabba, Scum, and maybe someone else. Now you've got a decent AC stack before LS's T2 attack.
I think this is really interesting, it seems like it would give a lot of choices for a lot of decks where you of course wouldn't do Emperor start. Wondering what decks it might be abusive in though, if any.
Eric Garchow
My eBay Store 10% off orders of 10+ items, plus free shipping on orders of $50+
My Trade Thread
My videos/photos of opening sealed SWCCG + other SWCCG things.
My Frequently Updating SWCCG Wants List

Jedicon
Enhanced Product
Enhanced Product
Posts: 744
Joined: June 28th, 2012, 2:06 am

Re: What would your solution be to balance TRM?

Post by Jedicon »

stephengascrub wrote:
June 19th, 2020, 7:00 pm
I’m not sure you attack Court on turn 0 anymore. If they barrier your character, and then counter with two additional aliens/droids and you’re sad.

Having an additional character, and let’s say it’s Xizor because your opponent is smart, it’s a real gamble.

TRM gets 5 force on turn 1. You throw down Rey or Anakin. If your battle is canceled and they respond with Jabba and Greedo you’re looking at:

16 power (!) + destiny
to your 4/5 power +no weapon swing+ no destiny.

Even if we give you Anakin and say your opponent draws a 2, that’s 18 to 5. You’re taking 5 overflow and losing your dude. That’s not good. With Rey this is 7 overflow.

Tldl, I’m glad I’m not on design. Cards like this could be totally fine. They could also be too good.
It would disincentivize playing TRM...which may be enough.

User avatar
FlorisV
Member
Posts: 2989
Joined: July 13th, 2003, 10:21 pm
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Re: What would your solution be to balance TRM?

Post by FlorisV »

Generally, make cards that have more restrictions so they don't auto-fit into TRM.

Restrict Wokling v to LS decks that don't go first.

Give aliens an Emperor-start like interrupt.

What I also miss with twixes in general since Coward shield/Simple Tricks is the other side of the coin. The twixes seem to have nothing but advantage and only Presence of the Force (or R2 v for LS) can swing it. Errata the shields so that you can drain at opponent's non-bg, at the very least the non-bg sites. Or make new v-spies that can drain there.

User avatar
Shadow 13
Member
Posts: 16474
Joined: October 30th, 2002, 6:34 pm
GEMP Username: shadow13

Re: What would your solution be to balance TRM?

Post by Shadow 13 »

darkside IL-19
ryan french
rebel strike team founder
two-time washington state champion
rhendon wrote:why not just elect a puppy as president, or mikefrench.

arebelspy
Member
Posts: 16721
Joined: July 14th, 2005, 4:45 pm
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Re: What would your solution be to balance TRM?

Post by arebelspy »

Shadow 13 wrote:darkside IL-19
That is a good solution.

Not a double edged sword with a common canceller the way potf is.

Make throne room and jcc and BNC more of a liability.

Jedicon
Enhanced Product
Enhanced Product
Posts: 744
Joined: June 28th, 2012, 2:06 am

Re: What would your solution be to balance TRM?

Post by Jedicon »

arebelspy wrote:
June 22nd, 2020, 1:46 am
Shadow 13 wrote:darkside IL-19
That is a good solution.

Not a double edged sword with a common canceller the way potf is.

Make throne room and jcc and BNC more of a liability.
This!

rhendon
Member
Posts: 11330
Joined: August 24th, 2010, 12:58 pm

Re: What would your solution be to balance TRM?

Post by rhendon »

FlorisV wrote:
June 21st, 2020, 8:07 am
Generally, make cards that have more restrictions so they don't auto-fit into TRM.
This is the best option. Right now LS has the best splashable characters that just autofit into the deck. The deck is literally a pile of splashable ships/characters that are really strong. Fix that and then the deck will fall down a notch.
FlorisV wrote:
June 21st, 2020, 8:07 am
Restrict Wokling v to LS decks that don't go first.
At this point, I'm curious about a meta that doesn't have wokling.
FlorisV wrote:
June 21st, 2020, 8:07 am
Give aliens an Emperor-start like interrupt.
This might be too much if you do the first. It might be too much even if you don't.
FlorisV wrote:
June 21st, 2020, 8:07 am
What I also miss with twixes in general since Coward shield/Simple Tricks is the other side of the coin. The twixes seem to have nothing but advantage and only Presence of the Force (or R2 v for LS) can swing it. Errata the shields so that you can drain at opponent's non-bg, at the very least the non-bg sites. Or make new v-spies that can drain there.
I definitely miss the days where LS couldn't auto play their twixes and then have protection from drains at them. People talk about how easy it is for LS to play twixes with Wesa/Speak. But Decipher made it easier to pull them because LS didn't have a shield that cancelled drains at them. As soon as we made that shield, we broke the checks/balance system that was in place.

DS gets the shield because LS could drain at a lot of non-bg locations like under the shield, dagobath, etc. Their twixes aren't easily pullable and that is the trade off. LS has easier to pull ones and DS doesn't have that many sites it can hide and drain at like LS.

I would just errata the LS one to make it not protect your locations. If we wanted to make more DS pullable twixes (we kind of have) then an errata to the DS one would be needed.

User avatar
beebopbananas
Member
Posts: 94
Joined: July 10th, 2016, 12:50 am
GEMP Username: Beebop

Re: What would your solution be to balance TRM?

Post by beebopbananas »

Nutritious wrote:
June 19th, 2020, 11:47 am
I had this discussion with someone recently. My thought was expanding the utility of ATMDv so that it works with other decktypes besides just Emp build could help a bit. For example, being able to deploy an alien leader instead would make it useful for a lot more decks.
I like this. Perhaps it turns into a Starting/Used Interrupt that returns to your deck. If Y4: Throne Room on table deploy a BG with upto 2 non-vader, non maintenance characters there?

Used aspect, could be once per game spend or lose force to pull into hand an effect, or maybe a leader? That would be nice for HD :twisted:
A-Always
B-Be
C-Cooking

User avatar
CrazyCatTim
Starter
Starter
Posts: 26
Joined: January 18th, 2020, 2:00 pm

Re: What would your solution be to balance TRM?

Post by CrazyCatTim »

FlorisV wrote:
June 21st, 2020, 8:07 am
Generally, make cards that have more restrictions so they don't auto-fit into TRM.

...

Give aliens an Emperor-start like interrupt.
I've always found it curious that the Decipher era restrictions of "may only deploy to X" or "deploys cheaper to X" were dropped in the v-card era. I understand there was probably a reason for this at some point, but it would return to more thematic play and slow down TRM (and many of the "best mains out there" platforms).

I'll add my voice to the "Aliens get an Emperor-start like interrupt" is a cool idea.
Returning player - Niagara Region (Canada) - Enjoys off the beaten path deck ideas for fun

User avatar
sjacree
Member
Posts: 4824
Joined: September 4th, 2007, 6:39 pm
Location: Sunyani, Ghana (Dathomir)
GEMP Username: Plagueis

Re: What would your solution be to balance TRM?

Post by sjacree »

What would your solution be to balance TRM?
Make the game less about battles and board control. Every deck is the same thing just in a different skin, and to me that is incredibly sad and boring. It's because every time someone cries NPE, it is usually to encourage that something be done to encourage "fair" interaction. I'm not saying that we need another Dagobah expansion, but ways to win without interaction (example: bring back swarm decks) would go a long way to helping balance TRM.
-Seth Acree, Compiler of Legacy Flex Cube, designer of Seth's Virtual Expansion, creator of Death March (legacy) and BHBM Skulls decktypes, Breaker of Dark Waters combo (legacy), former-CBT Member, former-Design team, best player in West Africa and...
Image Image
Throdo wrote:You're the most creative deckbuilder I know.

User avatar
3MW0J8
Member
Posts: 4260
Joined: January 29th, 2003, 8:54 pm
Location: I said I have the most 2nd places

Re: What would your solution be to balance TRM?

Post by 3MW0J8 »

What would your solution be to balance TRM?


Trick question! "Solution" implies that there is a "problem" with TRM in the first place :2gunfire:
Brad Eier wrote:build better decks, play better cards, etc.
Advocate wrote:I would reply, but the site is down.
didn't choose the thug life..
Spoiler
Show
the thug life chose me

ImageImage

Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”