|Subject:||Re: National Tournament???|
|Date:||Thu, 16 Apr 1998 15:26:27 +0800|
>The, ah, problem of only having one or two expansions solves this:
>There are only so many "did not"s that would arise. More importantly:
>SRTCG isn't about strict guidelines. It isn't about trying to hack
>timing mechanics to your whim. You raise a question; the judge makes a
>ruling or leaves it to the D6; end of story.
Ah... I've forgotten the magic d6.....
>What you don't get is the sometimes unforeseen consequences of ruling a
>card or game mechanic as being one way or another: no rules reversals,
>because they were never ground in stone to begin with. Live, and live
>easy; it's my particular belief that most people will be cool rather
>than turn into pricks in such a situation.
That's now, I'm thinking about the future... It's easier to shape metal when
it's hot than when it's cold.....
>I wouldn't really call a Big Tough Guy deck speedy. In fact, my bets
>would swing their way in the long run: there's only so long you can keep
>resources under your control, and many of the anti-control cards cost
>nothing (Bar Fight, Riots). The resource-manipulator is more likely to
>run into problems on shadowruns, and its easier to score eight or ten
>decent shadowruns than sixty-odd visits to Fuchi.
Look I hardly play so I'm just guessing.....
>That's, of course, just speculation, and I wouldn't be surprised to
>learn that the actual tournament results swung toward a third, unknown
>At any rate, the point of mentioning the Reputation total was that
>there's a diversity some other games completely lack: since Magic
>tournaments are (correct me if I'm wrong) all two-player format, it
>eliminates certain deck types from the get-go.
>It also enforces the concept that there's One Right Way to play, which
>eventual becomes One Deck to Play.
There is a major diffence b/w magic and SR....
Magic is very rigid... There are 5 colors each with a spicific attribute....
This is their foundation.
SR however has ony one type of resource (nuyen) and with that all cards are
playable... That's very flexible....
As such, I don't see the "One deck to Play" problem really surfacing in SR.
If everybody played a certain deck it's propably because they think it's
cool rather than powerful....
>On the other hand, standardization also kills non-tournament play (a
>much-heard gripe about MtG). Obviously, each tournament will a follow
>slightly different format; the difficulty is in ranking different types
>of tournaments on the same post, which is something no other ccg seems
>to be concerned with.
This is always the case.... Friendly become less and less common (sigh... I
don't seem to be able win much any more... But then I hardly build decks to
win... I build decks to shock my opponents socks off...)
>Part of the fun inherent in *any* card game is the flexibility inherent
>in it -- paradoxical since the actual amount of rules are so small. I'd
>like to be able to rate, say, one group that likes to play 300-point
>games, and one that likes to play 75-point games, and -- since a
>tournament system is going to have the trappings of officialty about it,
>*encourage both*. That's the point I'm getting at here.
I'm sorry, Ishould have stated this before... Standardization should only be
done during the tournament... For actual standards you'll need democracy....
For example having a 300pt tourny one day and a 75pt tourney the next. You
give everybody a fair chance while chatering to everyone.
>> >> Also, winning decks are always built based on ways to abuse the
>> >> When a combo abuses the rules too greatly, a way must be devised to
>> >> this combo or the game will become a "Play this combo, or have no
>> >> winning" game.
>> >Haven't found that combo in SRTCG (yet?). However, one of the major
>> >sore points many players have with MtG is the tendency to a) have one
>> >Power card in every expansion that you *must* play with; and b) the
>> >follow-up banning/limiting of that card three months later. As powerful
>> >as some cards are (Torgo, Skwark, younameit), I don't see any need, at
>> >the moment, to limit them, or any combinations worthy of suppressing.
>> >(In fact, my hackles are raised at the very talk of limiting card play.)
>> No. Not yet. But so far only the basic set and one expansion have been
>> released. So let's keep our fingers crossed......
>And if it still doesn't happen...?
>"All winnings decks ... abuse the rules..." I'm sorry, but that *was*
>an extremely offensive statement; more importantly, it only leads into
>the spiral of revamping the rules every release. Encourage the use of
>decks that don't abuse the rules: *that* is the solution.
Yes, thats offensive... But then some players (esp in Magic) do this... A
lotta players have bluffed their opponents into conceiding ( if you follow
the tournament scene you'll know who I'm talking about...)
>That actually happened because Garfield wasn't expecting big print runs
>or, more accurately, big purchases: He had played in an environment
>where there were only one or two 'bolts in print, yet alone in play, so
>in that sort of situation almost anything looks balanced (since it'll be
>limited by draw).
>On the other hand: OK, it's a twink deck - but the guy who first thought
>it up probably thought he was a genius for it. Give him that proud
>moment. It was, incidentally, before any official MtG tournament I'm
>aware of (at least -- in place by Beta).
>A while ago there was some talk of using Swiss-format scoring for
>tournaments, which at the time I was rather outspokenly against;
>however, given the possibilities for multiple tiers of game types, a
>similar system might be used. Any suggestions? I'd much rather allow
>(several) different gaming environments than one rather strict one, even
>if it makes direct comparison a bit limited.
Swiss format : I'm very comfortable with that....
Problem : time.......
I'll leave you tho think on that ... I need to go now...