Flattening the Curve

SWCCG game play discussion.
User avatar
Shadow 13
Member
Posts: 16489
Joined: October 30th, 2002, 6:34 pm
GEMP Username: shadow13

Re: Flattening the Curve

Post by Shadow 13 »

i'm surprised wokling didn't just get blanked.


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

arebelspy
World Champion
World Champion
Posts: 17353
Joined: July 14th, 2005, 4:45 pm
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Re: Flattening the Curve

Post by arebelspy »

Shadow 13 wrote:i'm surprised wokling didn't just get blanked.
That would be a good solution.

But then I'd want a v13 effect that could pull an effect the way wokling does. Maybe for only 2 force, and does something else since it loses the +1 activation and retrieval.

Oh speaking of which, trm losing the retrieval is big too (when you lose a saber to get it back, often). Pulling RU is nice but rare. Losing that isn't a big deal.

User avatar
Saladas
Member
Posts: 961
Joined: July 17th, 2006, 12:26 am

Re: Flattening the Curve

Post by Saladas »

Mando wrote:
October 9th, 2020, 9:39 pm
As a NARP I have to ask: Isn’t TRM falling out of the meta a really good thing? I know it has been around since the creation of the game, but the Y4 Throne Room seems like an utterly terrible card that should be blanked instead of consistently holding a top spot in the meta.

It breaks the rules of the game, which is cheating. Cheating is bad.

I would imagine it serves as a massive design constraint. Maybe I’m wrong, but would the curve be more level and the variance greater if D&D were able to make cards knowing the DS would go first in every game?

I like LS mains as much as the next person, and if we get rid of Y4 Throne Room, wouldn’t that be really good for mains? Because now there would be a greater variety of platforms for them and D&D could create stronger cards for those platforms without having to worry about TRM always being just a little bit better than the intended platform.

Again, I am a NARP, and I know I don’t understand the intricacies of this game, so maybe I am completely off base. Either way I am grateful for all these changes and the work D&D does. Keep up the great work!

#BlankTheThroneRoom
i'm very anti-trm, and thats one of the better arguments against trm i've seen. that actually happened when the luke effect was errata'd so it couldnt be started in trm.

arebelspy
World Champion
World Champion
Posts: 17353
Joined: July 14th, 2005, 4:45 pm
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Re: Flattening the Curve

Post by arebelspy »

Saladas wrote:
October 10th, 2020, 3:02 am
I would imagine it serves as a massive design constraint. Maybe I’m wrong, but would the curve be more level and the variance greater if D&D were able to make cards knowing the DS would go first in every game?
i'm very anti-trm, and thats one of the better arguments against trm i've seen. that actually happened when the luke effect was errata'd so it couldnt be started in trm.
What? When?

The lmfbm errata came at the same time as the saitor and lsrs erratas, and those just swapped in. There wasn't yet a time when ds went first every game in the current era (there have been times in the past, and could be time for that again).

Hazardville
LS Region: Tatooine
LS Region: Tatooine
Posts: 822
Joined: January 28th, 2018, 5:37 am
GEMP Username: Jagteq

Re: Flattening the Curve

Post by Hazardville »

arebelspy wrote:
October 10th, 2020, 3:18 am
Saladas wrote:
October 10th, 2020, 3:02 am
I would imagine it serves as a massive design constraint. Maybe I’m wrong, but would the curve be more level and the variance greater if D&D were able to make cards knowing the DS would go first in every game?
i'm very anti-trm, and thats one of the better arguments against trm i've seen. that actually happened when the luke effect was errata'd so it couldnt be started in trm.
What? When?

The lmfbm errata came at the same time as the saitor and lsrs erratas, and those just swapped in. There wasn't yet a time when ds went first every game in the current era (there have been times in the past, and could be time for that again).
Given that Massassi Throne Room is in Premiere, I think it's arguable that there's literally never been a time when DS went first in every game, b/c even if it's lower tier TRM is still a deck that you could play, much as something like Hyperdrive or Dark Deal are decks you could play now.
Justin Miyashiro
Image

arebelspy
World Champion
World Champion
Posts: 17353
Joined: July 14th, 2005, 4:45 pm
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Re: Flattening the Curve

Post by arebelspy »

Sure, and in that case there won't ever be, I can't see the PC banning or blanking a Decipher card.

They can trash it to the level of past unplayable even though.

Shield: "If y4: massasi throne room on table, opponent loses 60 force."

It'd still be technically playable.

The context is generally in a competitive environment, would it ever be chosen cause it can win and not just because you enjoy it?

User avatar
FlorisV
Member
Posts: 3019
Joined: July 13th, 2003, 10:21 pm
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Flattening the Curve

Post by FlorisV »

rhendon wrote:
October 9th, 2020, 2:58 pm
Poor TRM loses wokling and that deck is now unplayable.
You still have 12-card start. Gungan TRM with Epp's. Bunch of Wesa's to fetch BNC, Boss Nass, Rep Been, Otoh Gunga Entrance and Jar Jar. Not as dangerous in turn 1 but still a good deck. I would have been happier with modifying Wokling v differently (remove the +1 force activation but make the effect pulling cheaper to compensate). But less TRM isn't a bad thing in my book. HITCO and other mains platforms will still be very strong potentially.

arebelspy
World Champion
World Champion
Posts: 17353
Joined: July 14th, 2005, 4:45 pm
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Re: Flattening the Curve

Post by arebelspy »

For sure. LS mains aren't going anywhere.

rhendon
Member
Posts: 11464
Joined: August 24th, 2010, 12:58 pm

Re: Flattening the Curve

Post by rhendon »

FlorisV wrote:
October 10th, 2020, 10:10 am
rhendon wrote:
October 9th, 2020, 2:58 pm
Poor TRM loses wokling and that deck is now unplayable.
You still have 12-card start. Gungan TRM with Epp's. Bunch of Wesa's to fetch BNC, Boss Nass, Rep Been, Otoh Gunga Entrance and Jar Jar. Not as dangerous in turn 1 but still a good deck. I would have been happier with modifying Wokling v differently (remove the +1 force activation but make the effect pulling cheaper to compensate). But less TRM isn't a bad thing in my book. HITCO and other mains platforms will still be very strong potentially.
Sorry that was sarcasm. TRM isn't unplayable. It will still be competitive. It will be different though.

For as long as the USA is still playing SWCCG, I have faith that an American will find a good build of TRM and play it at every event.
Hunter wrote:
April 8th, 2020, 5:19 am
I agree with rhendon that Joe is Scum.

User avatar
flaminmonkee
Member
Posts: 50
Joined: May 23rd, 2018, 4:11 pm
Location: Norfolk, VA
GEMP Username: noreply

Re: Flattening the Curve

Post by flaminmonkee »

Definitely looking forward to seeing how things change with these in place and will be interesting to see for sure. Don't have the experience playing as a lot of people but overall seems like a reasonable set of changes to combat people's biggest gripes currently.

Thanks for all the hard work!
David Woods
gemp: noreply

gavino1983
Starter
Starter
Posts: 10
Joined: June 22nd, 2017, 1:08 pm
Contact:

Re: Flattening the Curve

Post by gavino1983 »

I like these changes, especially the reduction of No Idea. I can see a lot of thought went into them. I'm sure its often a thankless job, so thanks for your work.

alex-1
Sealed Deck
Sealed Deck
Posts: 257
Joined: May 18th, 2016, 6:01 am

Re: Flattening the Curve

Post by alex-1 »

Good changes. TRM is so annoying, so I like the Wokling errata very much. Thx!

The_Emp
Booster Pack
Booster Pack
Posts: 146
Joined: December 3rd, 2017, 5:32 pm
GEMP Username: The_Emp

Re: Flattening the Curve

Post by The_Emp »

Man, I love this dialogue since I absolutely love the 'balancing' aspect of the game.
From my experience, I have noticed Joe understands balancing very well, and has the ability to make predictions that come true. I think some people are blessed with that ability more so than others. I also think Hayes & Chu are excellent at understanding balance and anticipating changes and how they will effect things, and how much of a change (tweak vs nerf) might be needed. I've learned to also pay close attention to both Justin's posts (Desai and Miyashiro) as they offer different viewpoints/theories that may be counter to my own or others like Joe.
But this isn't just top players, and I can't just name a bunch, but Bern,FlorisV, Techterror seem to have a natural ability on balance too (and many others). There are lots of people, and not just people that I agree with.
What's my point in saying this? I am a coach, and I feel one of my abilities is to spot talent in specific areas. Look at how good Chris Kelly is on communication and working well with others, he has a synergy side to him to get along well with others. I think this dialogue back and forth is critical, if you agree or disagree write specifically why. I've learned a lot from reading and observing, but let's be careful not to shut down feedback and dialogue.
I'm hoping we move more to a "That's an interesting point, then what do you suggest to do differently or what alternatives would you propose?" and then for D&D to read that and include it in their ongoing balancing dialogues.
If some people are saying it's too harsh and knocks down a deck too far, and some are saying they think it's fine, while others are saying it's too early to tell, what we need is for D&D assess that and determine if a different version of the Wokling errata should be looked at closely.
I'm going to go out on a limb here, but I'm guessing that is what Joe was expecting to hear (~'We value your opinion and will take a look at changing the errata if it bumps down a deck too far').

The_Emp
Booster Pack
Booster Pack
Posts: 146
Joined: December 3rd, 2017, 5:32 pm
GEMP Username: The_Emp

Re: Flattening the Curve

Post by The_Emp »

I think we should have the goal of moving all decks to Tier 1, so as to work to eliminate tiers altogether which are bad IMO, and completely disagree with any notion that there should only be a few top tier decks (but am open to thoughts otherwise). Yes the meta will show us what migrates more one way or the other, and that therefore is the information we need for another change, and the magnitude of the change, i.e. tweak vs nerf.
I think the ultimate debate is "Can we adjust decks to competitive levels so it has a chance against any deck, albeit better or worse matchups, rather than the feeling of an almost auto-win/loss against certain matchups.
The ultimate thing we want to avoid and work against is major imbalances with deck matchups, but especially generalized Tiers. Rather, we should work towards a specific deck having a tiers of matchups being harder or easier. But if a deck is generally considered to be better than MOST of the other decks then that is a bad sign of imbalance.


I'm really curious to hear people's thoughts on why they adhere to the Rock Paper Scissor theory if we work to balance decks as to maximize the playability/competitiveness of every deck (which expands the game and limits redundancy and thus keeps the fun factor high).

If we examined a game such as Street Fighter as an example and looked at top players in the world, would we see they would only pick the same 2-3 characters each time, especially if they would able to see which character their opponent picked first? Mostly likely not, the player would know which characters have a better matchup against a specific character.

Capcom should then take the information if they saw that a high percentage of players were playing a specific character over other characters and then balance them so you are more likely to see the widest field of competitive characters possible.

User avatar
Hunter
World Champion
World Champion
Posts: 14992
Joined: February 10th, 2003, 3:27 am

Re: Flattening the Curve

Post by Hunter »

arebelspy wrote:wokling just made trm unplayable.
Death Star wrote:
October 9th, 2020, 6:48 pm
I lack your epic skillz knowing exactly, without even trying any kind of TRM deck without Wokling, that the deck is now absolutely unplayable. Hats off to you for knowing (not opinionating or speculating) that already.
Well then I don't know where your epic skillz ran off to. I certainly had them, and I would've definitely thought you had them too.
I would've definitely thought that you and Justin have each had dozens (hundreds?) of occasions where new cards were released, or old cards were adjusted, and you were able to immediately and accurately gauge the impact on the meta, without needing a single game of "playtest data."

I think you and Justin both come off looking a little silly in your interactions with Joe here, and I think you should both feel a little bit ashamed of yourselves for putting me in a position where I need to defend Joe about anything.

Meanwhile, everyone should *hope* that Joe is right about TRM being unplayable now. Not just because the throne room is an abomination against God, but also because...out of whatever TRM decks do continue to be used, a higher percentage of them are likely to be 12-card start now, which will make TRM's games even more draw-dependent and luck-based than they were before.

User avatar
Hunter
World Champion
World Champion
Posts: 14992
Joined: February 10th, 2003, 3:27 am

Re: Flattening the Curve

Post by Hunter »

Mando wrote:
October 9th, 2020, 9:39 pm
Isn't TRM falling out of the meta a really good thing? I know it has been around since the creation of the game, but the Y4 Throne Room seems like an utterly terrible card that should be blanked instead of consistently holding a top spot in the meta.
Someone make Mando a Design Advocate.
I would imagine it serves as a massive design constraint. Maybe I’m wrong, but would the curve be more level and the variance greater if D&D were able to make cards knowing the DS would go first in every game?
Seems so simple, doesn't it? You would think that everyone would understand how much more work the throne room creates for Design and Playtesting (and how dangerous and damaging it is when that additional work isn't done, as it has NEVER been done).

User avatar
Hunter
World Champion
World Champion
Posts: 14992
Joined: February 10th, 2003, 3:27 am

Re: Flattening the Curve

Post by Hunter »

The_Emp wrote:
October 13th, 2020, 1:02 pm
completely disagree with any notion that there should only be a few top tier decks
There should only be a few top tier decks.
I'm really curious to hear people's thoughts on why they adhere to the Rock Paper Scissor theory
Not sure what you mean here. What does the theory state?
If we examined a game such as Street Fighter as an example and looked at top players in the world, would we see they would only pick the same 2-3 characters each time, especially if they would able to see which character their opponent picked first? Mostly likely not, the player would know which characters have a better matchup against a specific character.
Most top fighting game players do not use only 2-3 characters. They use only 1 character (or only 1 team, in the games where you have a 3-man team instead of a single character). And they use only that 1 character (or team), regardless of instances where they think they know (or ABSOLUTELY know) what their opponent is using.

Commentators seem to talk often about how useful they feel it would be for the players to learn and use a "backup character" for matchup purposes (since there definitely are not only character "tiers" but also good and bad matchups within the tiers) but year over year, the players just keep on NOT doing it.

In fact, changing up your character selection for matchup purposes seems to be something that is heavily frowned upon, in some circles of the FGC (fighting game community).

I remember one SF player (who always used the same character) talking about SFIV, and the SFIV: AE (Arcade Edition). The AE had some new characters, and some tweaks to how some of the other characters functioned. The tweaks caused some subtle differences in the matchups for some characters. And he noticed that some players would use 1 character against him in the vanilla version of SFIV, but would audible to using a different character against him if they were playing the AE. And he said that when he would see those players switch characters against him to try and get a better matchup...he felt like he had already beaten them. Because the character change showed that they were mentally weak. And that instead of taking on the challenge of figuring out the best way to beat his character with their character, they just ducked the challenge altogether and changed the matchup.

Now, that's just one example of something one player said, but I think that mentality (switching to a backup character to get a better matchup = You are mentally weak) is WAY prevalent in that community.
Capcom should then take the information if they saw that a high percentage of players were playing a specific character over other characters and then balance them so you are more likely to see the widest field of competitive characters possible.
Fighting games are doing this stuff all the time. They send out downloadable patches or new editions, where certain characters get certain moves nerfed, and other characters get moves boosted. To try and level the field some, so that it won't be the same few top-tier characters constantly dominating. It never (Chris Jericho Voice:) EEEVERRRR works. Either your game has characters who all play pretty much the same (like DBFZ) or you have HUGELY stratified tiers. Period.

So if it's a game where the characters are actually unique from each other in interesting ways, then even in tournaments where the field of players numbers in the hundreds, and even in games where you pick 3 characters for your team instead of 1, there will still be shyt-loads of characters with ZERO representation.

rhendon
Member
Posts: 11464
Joined: August 24th, 2010, 12:58 pm

Re: Flattening the Curve

Post by rhendon »

Hunter wrote:
October 13th, 2020, 2:18 pm
I certainly had them...
I don't know why you feel you have to come to the boards and lie to the fine folks here, but you never had any of those epic skillz.
Hunter wrote:
April 8th, 2020, 5:19 am
I agree with rhendon that Joe is Scum.

The_Emp
Booster Pack
Booster Pack
Posts: 146
Joined: December 3rd, 2017, 5:32 pm
GEMP Username: The_Emp

Re: Flattening the Curve

Post by The_Emp »

Hunter wrote:
October 13th, 2020, 2:58 pm
The_Emp wrote:
October 13th, 2020, 1:02 pm
completely disagree with any notion that there should only be a few top tier decks
There should only be a few top tier decks.
I'm really curious to hear people's thoughts on why they adhere to the Rock Paper Scissor theory
Not sure what you mean here. What does the theory state?
Hunter why do you feel there should only be a top few tier decks? Isn't that redundant and not as much fun to play?
My point about street fighter is do you want to have just two characters against each other each time, or 20 to choose from? Perhaps my example was a bad one for the professional players out there, but it is much more of a twitch game than our turn based CCG game of course by the way but I liked the context - you know your competitive fighting game history. Impressive. Most Impressive.

I still completely disagree with the thought of having only 1-3 top tier decks that are competitive, anyone that could explain it more in detail it would be much appreciated and super interesting to me.


When I was referring to Rock Paper Scissors many people have said on the forums that when you have too many top tier decks it becomes just "RPS" and they believe randomness, which seems to me an extreme example. That way overweights the variance factor and underweights how much each decision matters in CCGs. I've haven't noticed we move towards that continuum yet, it's mostly on the other end of the scale which is a few top tier decks.

User avatar
stimpy
Member
Posts: 1180
Joined: May 3rd, 2010, 9:17 pm
Location: Charlotte, NC

Re: Flattening the Curve

Post by stimpy »

The_Emp, I think the simplest way I can state my thoughts on your post is to say: it is impossible to have a large number of playable decks of different styles that are all well balanced and relatively equal in power. The problem is of course worse the more decks that exist.

Those that want fewer “high tier” or competitively playable decks generally want to be able to predict what they are likely to face in a tournament, and plan their deckbuilding and gameplanning accordingly. I’m generalizing but that’s the idea

Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”