Flattening the Curve

SWCCG game play discussion.
Post Reply
arebelspy
Member
Posts: 16707
Joined: July 14th, 2005, 4:45 pm
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Re: Flattening the Curve

Post by arebelspy »

JarJarDrinks wrote:
arebelspy wrote:
October 14th, 2020, 2:11 am
Good point. 0 seems the only number not covered in the options. I had meant other as a potentially different range. I am curious what JJD meant, but it wouldn't surprise me if he wanted 0 viable decks. ;)
As many as possible.

I don't subscribe to Hunters RPS theory. Adding more decks to the meta doesn't automatically mean more RPS. It just makes things more difficult to manage and if not managed correctly RPS is one of the bad results that can happen.

In my opinion SWCCG nirvana is every objective being equally viable and having a 50/50 matchup against everything else. Obv we wont get that w/o unlimited resources but we should try to get as close as possible.
Thanks for elaborating!

If his scenario of "20 decks for each side" did also include "and "there are no autowins of autolosses, but they're all fairly balanced against each other in terms of win percentage" it would defeat his "no room for tech cards against bad matchup" idea and the rps argument (and randomness might as well raffle comment).

Certainly doesn't seem realistic. I wonder at what number it is realistic. 3? 5?

Not even those? (I think Hunter would argue not even at 3 would you have all 3 for each side fairly equal vs each other, thus his comment about good/bad matchups even in the 3 deck scenario).

It's an interesting thing to think about.



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

Re: Flattening the Curve

Post by The_Emp »

Let's take this logic and take any category such as activation: TRM activates so much so fast relative to other decks -> Increase Dark Side decks activation -> Compensate by increasing light side decks activation -> Activate 12 force by 2nd turn -> Decks with highest fastest activation become the best
Wait...weren't decks with highest fastest activation already the best, in step 1 of this progression? If increasing the activation of Dark Side decks is the problem, then maybe you should just accept that only 3 dark decks are able to keep pace with TRM's activation, instead of trying to add jet fuel to the activation for 17 more dark decks?
-------------
Not sure I'm following you here. That is my point, that it doesn't appear to balance the deck that has very high activation compared to the rest, where we add fuel to the problem and add activation to the rest. Balance IMO would mean adding additional risk and variance to the LS high activation deck so it's not as probable to win because of it's large activation differential.
------------
-> Add more cards that reduce the variance of missing your pulls like Force/Used/Reserve Pile pulls
I feel like you're way off the reservation now. What do these cards have to do with how many top tier decks are in the meta? You could make these cards (or not make these cards) regardless of whether each side has 3 strong decks or 20.
-> Add powerful characters with cheap deploy GMT, Herra, Solo etc.
What does this have to do with how many top tier decks are in the meta?

I'm simply laying out a quick example of a progression of power creep, since we were also discussing power creep. Power creeping certain cards way above others means they become more likely to be auto includes and we narrow down the relevant card choices. If we had made those cards to pair with specific decks/objectives, then we would reduce down the likelihood of the same cards being played in a majority of all decks.
Solution for super powerful characters like EPP Maul, LSJK, BFBH, Screaming Lando, Blizzard 4 etc.? Add variance by affecting those characters impact when they are played. Have interrupts like Mandalorian Mishap and Mindful of the future. Or if that requires too many cards for too many matchups, create effects or shields that water the power cards down. Not create LMFBM, or LSRS, or Super Dooku, or Maul LH.
What does ANY of that have to do with how many top tier decks are in the meta?
[/quote]
Again I'm addressing our topic of power creep we were discussing earlier.
Also this is an example of narrowing down the field of relevant cards played down to the same cards in the same decks for the same matchups over and over again.
A good example to take from Decipher was Han Solo. Captain Han Solo compared to General Solo for example (deployment restrictions or incentives to play in specific decks) which I think made sense.

rhendon
Member
Posts: 11314
Joined: August 24th, 2010, 12:58 pm

Re: Flattening the Curve

Post by rhendon »

JarJarDrinks wrote:
October 14th, 2020, 8:30 am
arebelspy wrote:
October 14th, 2020, 2:11 am
Good point. 0 seems the only number not covered in the options. I had meant other as a potentially different range. I am curious what JJD meant, but it wouldn't surprise me if he wanted 0 viable decks. ;)
As many as possible.

I don't subscribe to Hunters RPS theory. Adding more decks to the meta doesn't automatically mean more RPS. It just makes things more difficult to manage and if not managed correctly RPS is one of the bad results that can happen.

In my opinion SWCCG nirvana is every objective being equally viable and having a 50/50 matchup against everything else. Obv we wont get that w/o unlimited resources but we should try to get as close as possible.
Agree with this.

What we tend to have is what we currently have. Where TRM keeps Court in check that keeps No Idea in check. This is the RPS stuff. But it isn't dependent on the # of decks viable. One could say in the old TMW meta, there was TRM/No Idea/Legend for light and then dark was Court/ISB and then CCT jumped up because it was a better matchup against TRM than Court and could hold its own elsewhere. But small # of top tier decks and we still have RPS.

What we should shoot for is what JJD said. Every deck should be viable to some extent and it should be given the tools to compete. This is far easier said than done though. The decks that Court is a high win % against, should be given tools to fight it. Court should be given tools to fight TRM. It should be up to the players to deck build correctly to win an event.

arebelspy
Member
Posts: 16707
Joined: July 14th, 2005, 4:45 pm
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Re: Flattening the Curve

Post by arebelspy »

rhendon wrote:
JarJarDrinks wrote:
October 14th, 2020, 8:30 am
arebelspy wrote:
October 14th, 2020, 2:11 am
Good point. 0 seems the only number not covered in the options. I had meant other as a potentially different range. I am curious what JJD meant, but it wouldn't surprise me if he wanted 0 viable decks. ;)
As many as possible.

I don't subscribe to Hunters RPS theory. Adding more decks to the meta doesn't automatically mean more RPS. It just makes things more difficult to manage and if not managed correctly RPS is one of the bad results that can happen.

In my opinion SWCCG nirvana is every objective being equally viable and having a 50/50 matchup against everything else. Obv we wont get that w/o unlimited resources but we should try to get as close as possible.
Agree with this.

What we tend to have is what we currently have. Where TRM keeps Court in check that keeps No Idea in check. This is the RPS stuff. But it isn't dependent on the # of decks viable. One could say in the old TMW meta, there was TRM/No Idea/Legend for light and then dark was Court/ISB and then CCT jumped up because it was a better matchup against TRM than Court and could hold its own elsewhere. But small # of top tier decks and we still have RPS.

What we should shoot for is what JJD said. Every deck should be viable to some extent and it should be given the tools to compete. This is far easier said than done though. The decks that Court is a high win % against, should be given tools to fight it. Court should be given tools to fight TRM. It should be up to the players to deck build correctly to win an event.
Sure, and Hunter agrees with the "give decks tools to fight their worse matchups" (anti court for qmc, anti mains for court, etc). He's just saying when there are too many viable decks, you don't have room for all the tools you need against a half dozen decks, instead of 1 bad matchup, so you can't fit them, so you hit the rps of one of your bad matchups or one of your good ones.

Basically if you allow that there are tools needed for bad matchups, but lots of decks his argument holds. You'd need to tweak/errata the cards so they got those tools built in. And have them all perfectly (or nearly) balanced in terms of win percent without needing counter cards.

rhendon
Member
Posts: 11314
Joined: August 24th, 2010, 12:58 pm

Re: Flattening the Curve

Post by rhendon »

arebelspy wrote:
October 14th, 2020, 9:01 am
Sure, and Hunter agrees with the "give decks tools to fight their worse matchups" (anti court for qmc, anti mains for court, etc). He's just saying when there are too many viable decks, you don't have room for all the tools you need against a half dozen decks, instead of 1 bad matchup, so you can't fit them, so you hit the rps of one of your bad matchups or one of your good ones.

Basically if you allow that there are tools needed for bad matchups, but lots of decks his argument holds. You'd need to tweak/errata the cards so they got those tools built in. And have them all perfectly (or nearly) balanced in terms of win percent without needing counter cards.
I didn't say give tools to fight worse matchups. I said bad matchups. If you're down 55/45, then so be it. That isn't insurmountable from good play, deck building and some luck. Bad matchups are where you are down 70/30 or so maybe even 65/35.

You shouldn't need to fit in tools in a 50/50 matchup. They should be there to help you fight the 30/70 ones. If we start making tools to help you beat the 50/50 to 40/60 ones then we're essentially making every deck 55/45 which isn't reasonable.

arebelspy
Member
Posts: 16707
Joined: July 14th, 2005, 4:45 pm
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Re: Flattening the Curve

Post by arebelspy »

It really depends on how close those matches are

If 1/3 are bad matches (30/70 or worse), 1/3 are equal (50/50ish, plus or minus 5% or so) and 1/3 are good (70/30 or better) and there's 20 viable decks for each side, that leaves ~7 as ones you need to tech for. Unless there's one card hard counters (which somehow just bring it to 50/50 and not flip it the other way*), you just can't fit the tech cards, and are in Hunter's scenario.

Which means you'd need to only have a small number (1-2) of matchups that are bad (and conversely good, as they would be bad matchups for the other side then) and most around that 50%+/-.

Which brings us back to my point in the last post or two, that you can't really have good or bad matchups in a large number of viable decks scenario. Because then you're in rps. You need to have them all fairly balanced against each other. Which doesn't seem feasible at high numbers, and I wonder at what number of decks it would be somewhat possible.


*and a matchup being 50/50 because if you find your counter you always win, and if you don't, they do is technically 50/50, but also random and I don't think what anyone wants.

rhendon
Member
Posts: 11314
Joined: August 24th, 2010, 12:58 pm

Re: Flattening the Curve

Post by rhendon »

If that is the field, then 2 things.

1. That is a poorly designed field and we should look at why the meta has ended up that way. We should rethink our way of designing decks and the processes in place for them because we should not end up in a meta like that. The goal should be everything near the 50/50 mark + or - a few.

2. One could also make a generic counter that works against numerous decks. Its hard to really state something for this without hard information so bare with me while I try. We all know how I'm bad a communicating in posts.

But lets use court vs mains as an example. This is usually a bad matchup for Court. So things like HITCO/TRM/Jakku CRv mains would be bad matchups. But if you made a card that helps Court against mains, well then 1 card helps against 3 decks so you wouldn't need 3 cards for 3 decks.

The problem with SWCCG is our decks don't fit neatly into categories. We don't have aggro, control, mid-range, combo with deck types. One deck like CCT could fit into multiples of those. It makes our game design a lot tougher than MTG. Because MTG can force that balance by making a card for aggro that helps them against control if that gap is too wide. We have to dig deeper and find similarities of decks that are doing well against something to see if there is common ground to design a card to help against.

arebelspy
Member
Posts: 16707
Joined: July 14th, 2005, 4:45 pm
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Re: Flattening the Curve

Post by arebelspy »


rhendon wrote:If that is the field, then 2 things.

1. That is a poorly designed field and we should look at why the meta has ended up that way. We should rethink our way of designing decks and the processes in place for them because we should not end up in a meta like that. The goal should be everything near the 50/50 mark + or - a few.
I don't know if it's a poorly designed field, or just an artifact that some decks will always rise to the top, and some decks will always have better or worse matches.

And maybe they won't. That is a nice goal/dream, but the question more is how feasible is that.

I think if you could achieve that, Hunter would be happy, cause skill would play a huge role, and matchup randomness wouldn't happen.

Instead I think he's arguing that isn't a feasible (or even possible) goal.

Idk how feasible/possible it is, but I do know the more decks you add, the less feasible it becomes, just to the exponential mathematics of combinations. So at what number of decks is it still (roughly) feasible? It's interesting to speculate.

User avatar
sac89837
Member
Posts: 10754
Joined: November 29th, 2007, 4:06 pm

Re: Flattening the Curve

Post by sac89837 »

arebelspy wrote:
October 14th, 2020, 12:51 am
sac89837 wrote:
October 13th, 2020, 7:39 pm
arebelspy wrote:
October 13th, 2020, 5:46 pm
I'd be curious to hear from the current d&d members, in an official capacity, on how many decks they're targeting to be viable. Just a number (or small range) would be sufficient, unless you want to add commentary.

1-3?
3-5?
5+?
Other?
Define "viable"? There is a difference between can win Worlds and I can go 2-2 with it at Worlds.
How about both then?
I thought about it last night and my answer would be, for me personally there is no number. My job as a designer is to make new and interesting card mechanics that present players choices that materially affect the outcome of the game. Also we should avoid making any more tier 0 decks again that crowd out every other deck and deckbuilding creativity.

One thing to remember is only about 10% of posted designs ever finish the process and make it out into the wild. The rest are either cut or rolled into our library for future sets. So we can only cover so much thematic ground at once.

My last thought is a lot of groupthink among players and the meta naturally coalesces around 4-5 decks regardless. I think Tanks, AiTic, Old Allies, and Map are very viable, but I don't seem them very much on Gemp. That probably comes from players not having the time to playtest 10-20 decks for each side to see what they like best.
On a unicorn, riding a unicorn over a rainbow.

"Bounty Hunters don't do brunch."

arebelspy
Member
Posts: 16707
Joined: July 14th, 2005, 4:45 pm
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Re: Flattening the Curve

Post by arebelspy »

Good answer. Thanks Ryan. I'm thankful for your involvement in D&D.

BButter19
Starter
Starter
Posts: 31
Joined: January 2nd, 2020, 10:16 pm

Re: Flattening the Curve

Post by BButter19 »

Hey sac 987162625 - after looking at set 13 spoilers I noticed the focus was on new objectives - again. What is your rationale to disregard a lot of objectives that already exist and let them fall further and further down the ladder rather then giving them some attention? Thanks in advance.

User avatar
chriskelly
Design Advocate
Posts: 22651
Joined: January 28th, 2003, 2:13 pm
Location: New York

Re: Flattening the Curve

Post by chriskelly »

WYS is getting a decent boost this set. And it’s not unusual for sets to contain a few “one of” helper cards for other objectives. However with the flood of new movies and Disney media, a large part of our focus has been in exploring some of the newer stuff.

User avatar
stimpy
Member
Posts: 1152
Joined: May 3rd, 2010, 9:17 pm
Location: Charlotte, NC

Re: Flattening the Curve

Post by stimpy »

chriskelly wrote:WYS is getting a decent boost this set. And it’s not unusual for sets to contain a few “one of” helper cards for other objectives. However with the flood of new movies and Disney media, a large part of our focus has been in exploring some of the newer stuff.
Yeah I’m looking forward to trying WYS. Nice card

arebelspy
Member
Posts: 16707
Joined: July 14th, 2005, 4:45 pm
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Re: Flattening the Curve

Post by arebelspy »

Wait what spoilers are objectives?

Link?

User avatar
chrknudsen2
Member
Posts: 508
Joined: February 10th, 2018, 10:41 am
Location: Hørsholm, Denmark
GEMP Username: chrknudsen

Re: Flattening the Curve

Post by chrknudsen2 »

Gogolen spoiled all the cards on his show. The list should be posted today or tomorrow.

arebelspy
Member
Posts: 16707
Joined: July 14th, 2005, 4:45 pm
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Re: Flattening the Curve

Post by arebelspy »

Oh.

Thanks for the info. :)

User avatar
sac89837
Member
Posts: 10754
Joined: November 29th, 2007, 4:06 pm

Re: Flattening the Curve

Post by sac89837 »

BButter19 wrote:
October 14th, 2020, 12:49 pm
Hey sac 987162625 - after looking at set 13 spoilers I noticed the focus was on new objectives - again. What is your rationale to disregard a lot of objectives that already exist and let them fall further and further down the ladder rather then giving them some attention? Thanks in advance.
There actually is a story there, but it's up to Chris Kelly to spoil. But if you have a specific deck you are thinking about you can always ask, as we've probably had a dozen threads about it on the design boards.
On a unicorn, riding a unicorn over a rainbow.

"Bounty Hunters don't do brunch."

Berm
Reflections Pack
Reflections Pack
Posts: 239
Joined: May 26th, 2019, 5:43 pm

Re: Flattening the Curve

Post by Berm »

it looked like there were a whole host of new smugglers for LS for WYS.

arebelspy
Member
Posts: 16707
Joined: July 14th, 2005, 4:45 pm
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Re: Flattening the Curve

Post by arebelspy »

Fun! I think WYS being good helps a fun meta. It's balanced, easy to interact with, and mostly fair.

As long as they don't make the characters too OP (because the flip forfeit and interrupt text is so good) or too easy to save (e.g. the old corellian retort v, which cancelled a destiny targeting a corellian iirc or took one just lost back to hand) it seems like there's a lot of room to play there.

Like the Corellia system spoiled on the forums I really like.

BButter19
Starter
Starter
Posts: 31
Joined: January 2nd, 2020, 10:16 pm

Re: Flattening the Curve

Post by BButter19 »

Ok - but we are on set 13 now 6 years after the reset and a lot of objectives haven’t had any attention at all. I am not sure why the compass points to what Disney is doing vs what the community would like / needs. We don’t need to do arts and crafts for hours when we have a lot of cards already made that just need a couple helpers like when the original V card set came out with just 6 cards in 2001.

Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”