Day 3: Update

October 19th - October 22nd
PasTimes; 8351 1/2 Golf Road; Niles, Illinois 60714
http://www.pastimes.net/
MrPurple
LS Region: Coruscant
LS Region: Coruscant
Posts: 2072
Joined: May 20th, 2005, 5:44 pm
Location: Morristown, NJ

Post by MrPurple »

Some very interesting things :lol: Good points on EC(v) and the autoloses.


Matt Sokol
Image

CubsFan
Booster Box
Booster Box
Posts: 1373
Joined: November 1st, 2002, 2:40 pm
Location: Chicago

Post by CubsFan »

Wow, Hunter, there's very little in there I can argue with.

mikefrench
Top Cards
Top Cards
Posts: 18121
Joined: August 1st, 2005, 8:00 pm
Location: first street haven
Contact:

Post by mikefrench »

as far as the "swccg is too much about deck matchups right now" bit, WE KNOW THAT META'ING IS PART OF SWCCG. but it should never replace playskill. we're not saying that there should be no meta-gaming, because then we'd be all playing chess (playing with the same equal-powered pieces). we like variety, but we don't like auto-wins and auto-losses. period. we know that swccg is about deck matchups, but we think that RIGHT NOW, it's about deck matchups TOO MUCH. get the distinction?
The Honky Tonk Man wrote:If you want to post trash takes, at least go the Mike French route and come off as being somewhat reasonable.

mserisman
Member
Posts: 5048
Joined: August 19th, 2005, 1:42 am
Location: Australia

Post by mserisman »

no, you must have completely lost your mind. All this rain perhaps?
"Never content to just rest on your laurels, you are always still reaching skyward, looking to achieve staggering new heights in douchebaggery." - Hunter towards someone who will not be named

Jim Jerriko
Sealed Deck
Sealed Deck
Posts: 272
Joined: May 23rd, 2005, 4:55 am
Location: I wish I had more time.

Post by Jim Jerriko »

Hunter wrote:Some comments on the thread:


"Wipe Them Out, All of Them (v) is a dumb card"

**Slightly. The text that interferes with permanent weapons affects both players. The text that interferes with the use of unrelated non-battlegrounds should also affect both players. And yes, there should be a LS equivalent. EPP Maul, Vader, and Mara Jade are just as broken as EPP Luke, Obi, and Qui-Gon. This card is not dumb. EPPs are dumb. But the DS ones are just as dumb as the LS ones, so for the Dark Side player to have full control over whether the EPPs are limited (and whether unrelated twixes are limited) in any given match doesn't make sense. A LS version will put the DS player to the same deckbuilding decisions that people have complained about the LS player having to make.
Thank you.

CubsFan
Booster Box
Booster Box
Posts: 1373
Joined: November 1st, 2002, 2:40 pm
Location: Chicago

Post by CubsFan »

mikefrench wrote:as far as the "swccg is too much about deck matchups right now" bit, WE KNOW THAT META'ING IS PART OF SWCCG. but it should never replace playskill. we're not saying that there should be no meta-gaming, because then we'd be all playing chess (playing with the same equal-powered pieces). we like variety, but we don't like auto-wins and auto-losses. period. we know that swccg is about deck matchups, but we think that RIGHT NOW, it's about deck matchups TOO MUCH. get the distinction?
Everyone who says this fails to follow up with a single good suggestion for taking matchup problems away from a CCG.

There's an easy answer...there isn't one. It's a built-in aspect of a CCG when you pass a certain threshhold in the # of existing cards.

mikefrench
Top Cards
Top Cards
Posts: 18121
Joined: August 1st, 2005, 8:00 pm
Location: first street haven
Contact:

Post by mikefrench »

your answer is on the meta thread
The Honky Tonk Man wrote:If you want to post trash takes, at least go the Mike French route and come off as being somewhat reasonable.

lawtalkingguy
Booster Box
Booster Box
Posts: 1407
Joined: June 5th, 2005, 6:03 am
Location: Dreamland

Post by lawtalkingguy »

Jim Jerriko wrote:
Hunter wrote:Some comments on the thread:


"Wipe Them Out, All of Them (v) is a dumb card"

**Slightly. The text that interferes with permanent weapons affects both players. The text that interferes with the use of unrelated non-battlegrounds should also affect both players. And yes, there should be a LS equivalent. EPP Maul, Vader, and Mara Jade are just as broken as EPP Luke, Obi, and Qui-Gon. This card is not dumb. EPPs are dumb. But the DS ones are just as dumb as the LS ones, so for the Dark Side player to have full control over whether the EPPs are limited (and whether unrelated twixes are limited) in any given match doesn't make sense. A LS version will put the DS player to the same deckbuilding decisions that people have complained about the LS player having to make.
Thank you.
I see no reason why the LS shouldn't have a comparable option created for it.

Schele
World Champion
World Champion
Posts: 11599
Joined: May 18th, 2004, 4:15 pm
Location: Ackbar is an anagram for Barack. It's a trap!
Contact:

Post by Schele »

lawtalkingguy wrote:I see no reason why the LS shouldn't have a comparable option created for it.
You don't fix a problem with a problem...
Image

Psychobabble
Reflections Gold
Reflections Gold
Posts: 2453
Joined: September 10th, 2005, 6:25 am

Post by Psychobabble »

Nice post hunter, good to hear your thoughts.

User avatar
Thomas Caspersen
Member
Posts: 8197
Joined: November 29th, 2004, 2:30 pm
Location: Norway (Toola)

Post by Thomas Caspersen »

CubsFan wrote:Everyone who says this fails to follow up with a single good suggestion for taking matchup problems away from a CCG.

There's an easy answer...there isn't one. It's a built-in aspect of a CCG when you pass a certain threshhold in the # of existing cards.
I think surgical presicion is needed. Focus on each auto-loss scenario as a seperate thing, and change them into bad match-ups/balansed match-ups one after another.

Example:
Pre-redux SYCFA was an auto-win for MBO. A v-card should have been made to help SYCFA. Suggetsions:
1. Pullable by objective
2. Possibly an ok sideeffect.
3. Prevent's LS from blowing the DS
4. Prevent's you from loosing force when the DS blows
5. Gives you some sort of bonus if the DS is blown away.

This is just brainstorming. It should not be so much that SYCFA views MBO as a good match-up, but enough that it has a fair chance.
Image

thomashawk
Reflections Pack
Reflections Pack
Posts: 192
Joined: November 28th, 2004, 9:13 am
Location: Norway (Toola Region)

Post by thomashawk »

Thomas Caspersen wrote:5. Gives you some sort of bonus if the DS is blown away.
Socialist! ;) Really, this sound really un-themed, un-fair, un-Caspersen really. A player should - MUST - be punished for failing to defend himself. Perhaps I am wrong, but does not cards excist that helps you defend the spinning disco ball from hell?

- I am on the leader
- DS squadron with Vader
- TIEs with weapons?

These are cards that should belong in this deck, isnt it?

Perhaps I am missing something, but if the above is sufficient, it seems like people dont want to play them ,because it makes SYFCA worse (aka not giving autoloss to alot of other decks).

Seems to me that MBO is what needs errata or something, not another bullet..?

Anyways, the first few solutions seems better - number 6 just not my thing...
Thomashawk
:rimshot

User avatar
Thomas Caspersen
Member
Posts: 8197
Joined: November 29th, 2004, 2:30 pm
Location: Norway (Toola)

Post by Thomas Caspersen »

thomashawk wrote:Anyways, the first few solutions seems better - number 6 just not my thing...
Number 5, not 6 :wink:
But yeah, I agree with your assessment. As I said, it was just a brainstoming.

(I was kinda thinking something like: For remainder of game, you may activate X Force extra etc)
Image

thomashawk
Reflections Pack
Reflections Pack
Posts: 192
Joined: November 28th, 2004, 9:13 am
Location: Norway (Toola Region)

Post by thomashawk »

Thomas Caspersen wrote:
thomashawk wrote:Anyways, the first few solutions seems better - number 6 just not my thing...
Number 5, not 6 :wink:
But yeah, I agree with your assessment. As I said, it was just a brainstoming.

(I was kinda thinking something like: For remainder of game, you may activate X Force extra etc)
Yeah, to simulate some sort of extra effort after the destruction. Perhaps deploy the executor cheaper!? ;)
Thomashawk
:rimshot

User avatar
Hunter
World Champion
World Champion
Posts: 14816
Joined: February 10th, 2003, 3:27 am

Post by Hunter »

mikefrench wrote:as far as the "swccg is too much about deck matchups right now" bit, WE KNOW THAT META'ING IS PART OF SWCCG. but it should never replace playskill...we know that swccg is about deck matchups, but we think that RIGHT NOW, it's about deck matchups TOO MUCH. get the distinction?
**Yeah, I get the distinction. I just don't think your suggestions offer a solution. Like Kevin said: "I just find it a bit absurd to say that fixing/removing two cards is going to end the matchup/autoloss problem people keep bringing up. It isn't."

Like I said in my earlier post, I wouldn't mind if WTO (v) affected the DS's locations as well. And I wouldn't even mind if there was a LS equivalent made. What I don't understand is why someone would want for WTO (v) to just disappear altogether, letting the EPPs roam free. Your claim that "Epps = balanced" is about as accurate as if I were to say "activate phase = move phase".

Like many (and as far as I know, most) other players who've been playing since premiere, I have a deep-rooted loathing of Epps that has never gone away, no matter how many years have passed since Decipher first unleashed that plague upon us. I think it is generally accepted as fact that Epps were little more than a marketing gimmick, packaging flat-out broken cards (cards SO overpowered that you would be foolish to try and compete without them) with unwanted packs that the company couldn't move otherwise. People talk a lot about "power creep" in this and other CCGs, but EPPs were not an example of power creep, they were an example of power LEAP. Any considerations about "balance", as compared to the cards that had existed before, were completely thrown out the window.

Schele says you can't fix a problem (WTOv) with another problem (LS WTOv). But I say that WTO isn't the problem, the EPPs are the problem, and the only problem created by WTO is the fact that it only fixes half the EPPs. The LS half. Fix the DS half. No mo' problem.

CubsFan
Booster Box
Booster Box
Posts: 1373
Joined: November 1st, 2002, 2:40 pm
Location: Chicago

Post by CubsFan »

Hunter wrote: **Yeah, I get the distinction. I just don't think your suggestions offer a solution. Like Kevin said: "I just find it a bit absurd to say that fixing/removing two cards is going to end the matchup/autoloss problem people keep bringing up. It isn't."

Like I said in my earlier post, I wouldn't mind if WTO (v) affected the DS's locations as well. And I wouldn't even mind if there was a LS equivalent made. What I don't understand is why someone would want for WTO (v) to just disappear altogether, letting the EPPs roam free. Your claim that "Epps = balanced" is about as accurate as if I were to say "activate phase = move phase".

Like many (and as far as I know, most) other players who've been playing since premiere, I have a deep-rooted loathing of Epps that has never gone away, no matter how many years have passed since Decipher first unleashed that plague upon us. I think it is generally accepted as fact that Epps were little more than a marketing gimmick, packaging flat-out broken cards (cards SO overpowered that you would be foolish to try and compete without them) with unwanted packs that the company couldn't move otherwise. People talk a lot about "power creep" in this and other CCGs, but EPPs were not an example of power creep, they were an example of power LEAP. Any considerations about "balance", as compared to the cards that had existed before, were completely thrown out the window.

Schele says you can't fix a problem (WTOv) with another problem (LS WTOv). But I say that WTO isn't the problem, the EPPs are the problem, and the only problem created by WTO is the fact that it only fixes half the EPPs. The LS half. Fix the DS half. No mo' problem.
Quoted for truth.

mikefrench
Top Cards
Top Cards
Posts: 18121
Joined: August 1st, 2005, 8:00 pm
Location: first street haven
Contact:

Post by mikefrench »

how are epps not balanced right now? i can understand that when they were released they were not, but right now, at this point in swccg, they are fine. no one gives any reasons why they're not. why they are balanced:

no immunity
little or no game text
good deploy/forfeit ratios
discourage npe spread and drain strats
provide concise ground options for space based decks
card slot friendly
get pwnd by mains with toys and interrupt backup
can't hold a site alone

if anything, the unbalanced ones are quigon/maul (esp maul). luke/vader/obi/mara are fine (mara is borderline unbalanced as she's a spy). han/leia/chewie/dengar/bosssk/etc are not unbalanced in the LEAST.

obv they're power cards. but there's nothing wrong with power cards.
The Honky Tonk Man wrote:If you want to post trash takes, at least go the Mike French route and come off as being somewhat reasonable.

User avatar
Thomas Caspersen
Member
Posts: 8197
Joined: November 29th, 2004, 2:30 pm
Location: Norway (Toola)

Post by Thomas Caspersen »

Yeah, EPP Maul and EPP Qui-Gon are the worst offenders. I remember back when I started playing this game, around the release of Special Edition. EPPs soon became something to despise, cause everyone chose to play them over the "cool" versions (=non-EPPs).

I would not cry if every EPP was removed from the game, but I would prefer just to have them toned down a bit. Obviously less than they are now, but still, some.

Oh, and Hunter made a really good point: WTO(v) makes the game unbalanced because it only affetcs LS.

This is a type of card that can't be justified to release for only one side of the force.

I think this was the "oppositions" heaviest argument during the old BSG(v) discussion too, and it is no less relevant now.
Image

CubsFan
Booster Box
Booster Box
Posts: 1373
Joined: November 1st, 2002, 2:40 pm
Location: Chicago

Post by CubsFan »

mikefrench wrote:how are epps not balanced right now? i can understand that when they were released they were not, but right now, at this point in swccg, they are fine. no one gives any reasons why they're not.
I find one fact pretty telling: before WTO, everyone was using EPPs and nobody was using immunity mains with weapon cards. That says to me that decks using EPPs really don't suffer much from the lack of immunity and the other "downsides" you listed.

If EPPs were "truly" balanced (and I'm not even sure "balanced" is the right word to be using here, but whatever), you'd have decks that used EPPs and you'd have decks that used mains and weapon cards. But I don't think people can really argue with the fact that pre-WTO, there were few, if any, good decks running weapon cards.

Schele
World Champion
World Champion
Posts: 11599
Joined: May 18th, 2004, 4:15 pm
Location: Ackbar is an anagram for Barack. It's a trap!
Contact:

Post by Schele »

CubsFan wrote:I find one fact pretty telling: before WTO, everyone was using EPPs and nobody was using immunity mains with weapon cards. That says to me that decks using EPPs really don't suffer much from the lack of immunity and the other "downsides" you listed.

If EPPs were "truly" balanced (and I'm not even sure "balanced" is the right word to be using here, but whatever), you'd have decks that used EPPs and you'd have decks that used mains and weapon cards. But I don't think people can really argue with the fact that pre-WTO, there were few, if any, good decks running weapon cards.
Is this a joke? Pre-redux(i.e. pre-WTO), everyone was playing immunity mains in all of their CP/CR decks. EVERYONE.
Image

Post Reply

Return to “[FY06] Worlds Weekend 2006”