[KillerB]

I want every Tier-1/local legend/any player who's been around for 10+ years to watch this. It's less then 3 minutes, and you only need to watch the 2nd minute.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9-4wTmn8gU

I talked about this poorly on The Discard Pile Christmas Special. My plea to you guys is to stop dominating locals. Stop caring about your rating. Play fun decks, help your opponents, make sure they are learning and winning.

Save the Central Command/The Enemy of my Enemy cheese deck for Texas Masters. Not a fucking league local (I'm looking at you MVB).

None of us knowing this simple idea, that somebody needs to win at least 30% to keep playing a game, is what has contributed most to the decline of trek.

[Marquetry]

It was for achievements. We're not the 'play to always win' type here, it has nothing to do with ratings.

[Naetor.Ret]

One thought I had in a modern, digital CCG would be to assign "power points" to cards based on how often they are played, then put a maximum on the number of "power points" you could play in a deck. So maybe like a 60 card deck could have at most 100 points; and a card like Unexpected Difficulties might be 3 points while Voluntary Withdrawl might be 1. You could just update this weekly/monthly/whenever since deck statistics in a digital game are pretty easy to acquire. This would make decks more fluid, level the field often, and make deckbuilding more personalized.

As for this game, you make a reasonable proposal but it's very subjective and out of your control. I imagine it's pretty common for people give their opponents missions from time to time. Giving away a game seems wrong, though -- not sure I'd want to be on either end of that.

The best way to design a game where the inferior player/deckbuilder wins often enough is to insert more RNG into the game, and conversely reduce consistency: more high roll, less downloading. But you'd probably want to make both, when in the game, less powerful than "average". This let's players wisely choose their style: more novice players may choose more RNG to give them a better chance while expert players may choose consistency over power. Right now the game has comparatively little RNG -- the best player+deck wins at a high % -- and consistent decks tend to be the most powerful.

[Faithful Reader]

Save the Central Command/The Enemy of my Enemy cheese deck for Texas Masters. Not a fucking league local (I'm looking at you MVB).

Will we even be able to use Central Command in Texas?

[KillerB]

It was for achievements. We're not the 'play to always win' type here, it has nothing to do with ratings.

I assumed Mike was also going for some KCA achievement. I showed this weekend that you can play KCA and not just import cheese. I'm only bashing him a little, he's free to do as he likes. I'm just saying he has nothing to prove.

[KillerB]

One thought I had in a modern, digital CCG would be to assign "power points" to cards based on how often they are played, then put a maximum on the number of "power points" you could play in a deck. So maybe like a 60 card deck could have at most 100 points; and a card like Unexpected Difficulties might be 3 points while Voluntary Withdrawl might be 1. You could just update this weekly/monthly/whenever since deck statistics in a digital game are pretty easy to acquire. This would make decks more fluid, level the field often, and make deckbuilding more personalized.

As for this game, you make a reasonable proposal but it's very subjective and out of your control. I imagine it's pretty common for people give their opponents missions from time to time. Giving away a game seems wrong, though -- not sure I'd want to be on either end of that.

The best way to design a game where the inferior player/deckbuilder wins often enough is to insert more RNG into the game, and conversely reduce consistency: more high roll, less downloading. But you'd probably want to make both, when in the game, less powerful than "average". This let's players wisely choose their style: more novice players may choose more RNG to give them a better chance while expert players may choose consistency over power. Right now the game has comparatively little RNG -- the best player+deck wins at a high % -- and consistent decks tend to be the most powerful.

That first part sounds like daily fantasy football (where players get assigned points). I hate DFF.

I'm not advocating losing games on purpose. I'm advocating proven players play more casual decks in locals. This weekend I lost two games, I did so based on the 'coaching' I provided. The Compound is a different animal, but in most areas you have players who play enough where you wouldn't need to go that far. But I stilled beat one kid because that's just how the game came out.

I guess what I'm asking proven players to do is think about their deck choices. Take something from the bottom of the power rankings. Or build a crazy idea you have that probably won't work. Sometimes you find out they do work. This is how I came up with my Battle and treachery decks. You're keeping the little rat playing and you're expanding your complete knowledge of the game. At the sacrifice of what? Ratings points and meaningless local wins.

We still get to bash each other with deck in Regionals, Masters, Continentals, and Worlds.

[KillerB]

it's very subjective and out of your control.

I'm just asking people to consider an idea.

[KillerB]

Save the Central Command/The Enemy of my Enemy cheese deck for Texas Masters. Not a fucking league local (I'm looking at you MVB).

Will we even be able to use Central Command in Texas?

Mannasters3 and Texas you mean?

I don't give out Paul Manafort polling data.

[Naetor.Ret]

it's very subjective and out of your control.

I'm just asking people to consider an idea.

Like I said in the clause right before this quote, it's a reasonable proposal. I have my personal rules when it comes to this stuff, even if they are mostly for my own selfish reasons:
1) never copy someone else's deck (though I often look at others' decks for inspiration);
2) never play the same or similar deck you just played recently (especially if you won with it);
3) never play with a card on the watchlist.

But everyone has their own rules, and I wouldn't pass judgement. I recently had an opponent play a similar deck to one I had just faced from him. This violates my own rule, but his explanation that he didn't have time to make a new one was perfectly acceptable and not needed.

I do think we agree on this, and if nothing else playing decks you aren't comfortable with makes you a better player.

[KillerB]

Like I said in the clause right before this quote, it's a reasonable proposal. I have my personal rules when it comes to this stuff, even if they are mostly for my own selfish reasons:
1) never copy someone else's deck (though I often look at others' decks for inspiration);
2) never play the same or similar deck you just played recently (especially if you won with it);
3) never play with a card on the watchlist.

I also have #1 and #2, I'll try to add #3 to it.

If the other dude was a 'little rat', then I wouldn't blame him for using the same deck he's had success with. If he's a 'Big Rat', then you have a Neil Timmons on your hands.

He played in Sykes' basement against children. That's a worse violation then MVB.

[Resistance-is-futile]

You know yah o wasn’t to happy Michael did KCA achievement with cardassians power interrupts but... it forces you to play better.....

I did my damnedness to try and stop him with killing like 20+ people and stalling as long as I could

Note to one self- if you think cardassians are a real possibility at an event....

...bring kill tactics consume, non-consume, other cards etc

If u think they show up and u bring a attrition pile then that wasn’t very smart

[Caretaker's Guest]

I recently faced Michael's deck played by someone else. I chose Romulans to see if they'd have a chance against that cheese. And the game was close. Outclassed and Breaking the ice do miracles if you swith out Garak. I lost due to making a hero-call only throwing one Outclassed not playing it safe by backing it up with Breaking the Ice and ran into Central Command... But Romulans can compete against that nonsense. Having the Phoenix in handwhilst solving Prototype and forgetting ones own Insurrection didn't help particularly .

I like Naetor's rules. I gonna try to stick to them as well.

And after Connor's friendly warning I gonna move over to the power-ranking's thread...

[KillerB]

We've talked about ELO decay before, but I have an even worse pitch:

Since ELO is zero sum system, instead of decay, every year you don't play in a sanctioned event you lose -25 points. Then those points go to players from the bottom-up who have played that year.

Socialism. It's very Star Trek.

[monty42]

Socialism. It's very Star Trek.

Yes. Nerds on the other hand don't like it when their stuff gets taken from them...

[bosskamiura]

Socialism. It's very Star Trek.

Yes. Nerds on the other hand don't like it when their stuff gets taken from them...

I was thinking the other day about Star Trek nerds.

How do you define a Star Trek nerd? Deep question, I know.

TK