PDA

View Full Version : Idea for a new constructed format aimed for rogue deck builders



bootlace
11-24-2013, 09:00 AM
One of the aspects of TCGs that turns some people off from constructed play is that there's usually a bunch of netdecks that are considered the 'best' and that everyone ends up playing in one form or another. Even if the decks change, some cards are always staples that tend to make it in certain decks regardless of strategy.

I know Cory has said they will make attempts to keep the meta as varied as possible, but if Alpha is any indication there is always going to be an inclination towards certain cards. This takes away alot of the creativity and fun from deckbuilding - because certain decks, cards, strategies, win conditions are always going to be slightly 'not good enough' for serious constructed play.

I came up with an idea for a constructed format I thought could potentially swing things back in favor of rogue deck builders - this is something only possible with a digital only TCG like Hex:

The crux of the idea is an 8 man tournament in which you're rewarded - or I should say NOT punished - for playing cards that others in the tournament are not playing. When decks are submitted, the client does a quick analysis of all the cards in the tournament. If you have the most copies of a certain card in the tournament pool (unless no one else has any copies of the card) then the client transforms any copy of that card in your deck in to "Pay 2 life, draw a card". Obviously this hampers players' strategy considerably and you certainly don't want too many of these in your deck. A couple of these in a game might not matter too much, but they definitely add up and will swing the game in favor of those that try to remain 'rogue'.

This obviously has plenty of implications when deciding what deck to build. Do you go for the super rogue deck you know no one is going to play? Do you take the risk and put one or two copies of a powerful staple card anticipating others will play more? Do you build a singleton deck that not only shields you from heavy risk but has potential to screw over opponents? Do you employ some reverse psychology and actually go for the strongest cards/deck thinking others will be scared to place such cards in their decks?

There's obviously a lot of mind games going on and its a dynamic mechanic that can always balance itself regardless of what the meta game looks like or which cards are in the format. Cards you never ever considered putting in a constructed deck will gain new found meaning and significance. That crazy win condition you thought of that had no shot at beating the top decks, suddenly gains some credibility.

This specific implementation is probably best suited at 8 player tournaments and limited to a set environment. Adjustments could be made for involving more players/wider formats by increasing the player size of the tournament.

Anyways this is just a basic idea I'm throwing out there, there's plenty of aspects of it that can be tweaked for example the 'penalty' players receive, perhaps it can be replaced with a reward system, or what triggers a penalty can also be adjusted.

Any feedback is welcome.

Shadowelf
11-24-2013, 09:14 AM
Seems unnecessarily complicated to me when they can introduce formats like pauper (http://www.wizards.com/magic/tcg/resources.aspx?x=magic/rules/pauper), cube (http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/eventcoverage/tpc12/intro_to_cube), or even highlander (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/feature/393).

You can also make your own tournaments/league, using your own rules


Leagues! Imagine an interface that allows you to custom craft your very own league. Pick and choose all the options of your league, what format, how long it will run, who can play in it, what the prizes will be. This simple and intuitive tool will allow you completely customize the league.

update #11 http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/cze/hex-mmo-trading-card-game/posts?page=10

In addition, just because everybody may be netdecking, doesn't necessarily mean that you can't have success by building your own innovative deck in constructed tournaments

bootlace
11-24-2013, 09:29 AM
Pauper has as much netdecks and staple cards as any format, highlander/singleton formats are highly restrictive and inconsistent, while cube is a draft format not constructed.




In addition, just because everybody may be netdecking, doesn't necessarily mean that you can't have success by building your own innovative deck in constructed tournaments

While a deck might start as innovative in one tournament, if it really is good then everyone will use it at which point it will become a netdeck. If its not consistent then its not really viable in a serious constructed format.

The format Im suggesting aims to keep flexibility in the deck making while providing a dynamic loopback system that always corrects itself and no specific deck can ever stay on top.

Pseudoradius
11-24-2013, 09:45 AM
How about a format where you simply ban certain staple cards?
Or to make it more simple: Bans about 200 random cards from the card pool? (200 is a guess for a number, which will most likely blow a hole into all netdecks or at least make the current state of the metagame for all cards lose its meaning.)
An other version would be the opposite, where all cards are banned except for about 500 randomly chosen cards. (Here the number will have to be big enough to enable variety, but small enough for people to enable players to recognize what cards are good or bad.)

This would be doing something like Chess960 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess960) does where you can't rely on knowing what cards are in a good deck but you actually have to know how to build a good deck, given a set of cards.

Malakili
11-24-2013, 09:51 AM
A cube format with some of the most popular cards not included is probably the best way to achieve something like what you are going for. I know it isn't constructed, but you're essentially just asking for a format where underperforming constructed decks have a chance to win. I understand why someone might want such a thing, but frankly, tournaments are meant to be a competitive format and it seems silly to punish people for playing good cards in a competitive constructed format.

bootlace
11-24-2013, 10:16 AM
you're essentially just asking for a format where underperforming constructed decks have a chance to win.

Well to be honest what I wanted was to have those FNM casual players, those fun 'Johnny' cards, those weird combo decks, those crazy win conditions all be actually part of a legit format (and not just demoted to a 'casual' players room). When I watch a MTG constructed game, I always see the same bunch of cards and decks and that really takes away from the incredible diversity of cards and strategies that are actually in the game - and makes watching the e-sport 'less fun' than it can be. Im not sure having a pretty random cube event with a predetermined set of cards which you can't really formulate a solid strategy around is the answer.

HyenaNipples
11-24-2013, 10:36 AM
I really like this idea, bootlace. The effect of everyone's behaviors on the card pool is really interesting.

I'd love to playtest this game-mode and see how it works off-paper.

HyenaNipples
11-24-2013, 10:38 AM
What if the players bring in a deck, and the server cuts out the popular choices, and players then get to pick the replacements from their card pool (but all eliminated cards are unavailable for re-selection.

I think that will make it more fun to players because they will feel like they are more in control of the tournament, rather than luck eliminations making their decks boring to play.

bootlace
11-24-2013, 11:16 AM
What if the players bring in a deck, and the server cuts out the popular choices, and players then get to pick the replacements from their card pool (but all eliminated cards are unavailable for re-selection.

I think that will make it more fun to players because they will feel like they are more in control of the tournament, rather than luck eliminations making their decks boring to play.

This is a great idea! Something needs to be done however so that in the first round of submission everyone doesn't just pick 1 of of specific cards to just hate on a bunch of cards they don't want to see in the tournament. For example a card should only be 'replaced' if a certain threshold is reached in terms of the # of that card in the pool. That way you have a risk of actually playing the card if not that many people picked to play with it.

E.g: There are 8 or more copies of the 'Burn' card in the tournament pool then everyone who has that card can replace it. If there are only 6 copies lets say - then not replaced. Then we can maybe get rid of that penalty I suggested and still have a very varied meta.

poizonous
11-24-2013, 01:34 PM
WTF am I reading this for??? IT sounds like a horrible version of pauper. And asking for a format like this with only 1 set of cards is ridiculously stupid.

Niedar
11-24-2013, 02:16 PM
You know they can pull pricing data off the auction house and have a format that bans all cards that are worth more than a certain amount. It would allow for a completely dynamic and cheap format that would have trouble establishing any sense of a permanent meta as popular decks drive up the prices to the point where you can't use them.

If that isn't enough on its own they could vary the price threshold week to week as well.

poizonous
11-24-2013, 02:42 PM
You know they can pull pricing data off the auction house and have a format that bans all cards that are worth more than a certain amount. It would allow for a completely dynamic and cheap format that would have trouble establishing any sense of a permanent meta as popular decks drive up the prices to the point where you can't use them.

If that isn't enough on its own they could vary the price threshold week to week as well.

See now that isnt too bad of an idea but basing tournaments off of Auction House prices is not going to work all the time as now you are determing the metadeck for that style tourney to be determined by the greediness of people in what they value a card

Lawlschool
11-24-2013, 02:46 PM
I like the idea of a more Johnny focused tournament, but you're asking for quite a lot from the Engineers. It's an interesting concept, but you're asking them to code in quite a lot of stuff simply for a different tournament. Shadowelf pointed out that they do want to have the functionality to set up your own tournaments with your own rules, which seems like a much simpler way to do what you want to do.
Hopefully the "Build Your Own Tournament" feature will let you set restrictions like deck size, card bans, # of identical cards, etc. You could always just do a "no netdeck" tournament too.

Niedar
11-24-2013, 03:20 PM
See now that isnt too bad of an idea but basing tournaments off of Auction House prices is not going to work all the time as now you are determing the metadeck for that style tourney to be determined by the greediness of people in what they value a card

That is true but I think it is good to use a price restriction because you want to create a situation where the price of experimentation is low. Because the meta keeps on drastically changing you can not really invest into one deck and call it a day like you can in other formats. You will constantly have to be creating new decks. If people were allowed to use expensive cards then many people just wouldn't bother.

So basically you sacrifice the possibility of some combinations of cards to make it much easier for the players to actually participate in the events. They could just construct random playable sets of cards but I suspect the people who participate in those events are only people that have all the cards.

funktion
11-24-2013, 03:43 PM
Gotta say, that idea is definitely pretty interesting Niedar. What number would it pull off the AH? Average price of cards sold within the last 4 days or something?

I think if it was based on current listings it would be pretty easy for individuals to change what was playable at the last second etc...

Actually thinking about that a second time, that kind of investment would likely outcost the actual rewards so I don't see that really being a problem even. That would definitely be a really interesting format since it would likely be really volatile. Every once in awhile a really strong card within that format might become active due to price and you could live the dream just that once.

poizonous
11-24-2013, 03:49 PM
1 other problem I have with this....

After thoroughly thinking this out extensively, (Because this tournament really intrigued me) I think there is a major flaw we have not considered yet.

A Tournament like this could possibly kill the economy in Hex. As now we are possibly turning common cards that are dominating these tournaments into price effective cards of Vampire King and Zombie Plague range. And when every card starts costing ridiculous amounts of money, then no one is able to sell anything because people will just continue to buy packs and not individual cards since commons will start costing more than a pack.

bootlace
11-24-2013, 04:04 PM
WTF am I reading this for???

Don't know why you read it, but I certainly didn't charge you to do so, so not sure why you're getting your panties in a twist.



IT sounds like a horrible version of pauper.

Pauper:

1) Limits your card choice flexibility
2) Takes away all the cool rares that I actually would want to see in the Rogue/'Johnny'/fun format
3) Doesn't reduce the chance of seeing the same cards/netdecks/format staples over and over again


And asking for a format like this with only 1 set of cards

Please tell me where I 'ASKED a format like this with only 1 set of cards'. It's an idea - put it right in the title so it wouldn't be missed.


is ridiculously stupid.

Yea..something here is definitely ridiculously stupid alright.

poizonous
11-24-2013, 06:25 PM
Bootlace if you check the quality of my posts in this forum you will see I am not bashing you. The idea originally posted by you was both A) Time consuming for them to program and B) Probably going to cause soooo many bugs with the whole "Least used cards in tournament gain an extra ability" mechanic. As you see I am open to other tournament ideas but not this one. (As shown clearly by my continous posts in this topic)

Malakili
11-24-2013, 06:48 PM
A Tournament like this could possibly kill the economy in Hex. As now we are possibly turning common cards that are dominating these tournaments into price effective cards of Vampire King and Zombie Plague range. And when every card starts costing ridiculous amounts of money, then no one is able to sell anything because people will just continue to buy packs and not individual cards since commons will start costing more than a pack.

On this point there will always be best decks in any format. Even with restrictions like those mentioned in thks thread, good decks will emerge and the same people will be lamenting the lack of viable options. If you want to play competetive at some level youneed to accept that you cant always play exactly what you want. I used to call a hail mary every play in Madden when I was a kid, but if I wanted to coach a real team I would have to reign it in some.

Niedar
11-24-2013, 06:55 PM
It should be noted though that there is about 18x more of a specific common than there is of a specific mythic. This does not mean that if they had equal demand that if a mythic was priced at 18 dollars then the common would be priced at 1 dollar because there is a highly non-linear increase in price as supply goes down in competitive TCG. Also the fact that we seem to artificially value mythics more than a common psychologically.

Ebynfel
11-24-2013, 10:59 PM
Honestly, if the AH restrictions were weekly, this could work. And I highly doubt that it'd stop people from selling those commons and buying more packs. In a sense, it may even stimulate the economic growth. After all ,decks doing well in a format have their cards increase in price, and if said cards exceed threshold, then a new deck will have to be wrangled, and old popular choices may drop in prices. Having this weekly ensures a meta differentiation that matters. And allows people to build their decks early in the week, to compete later in the week, with a completely defined card pool. It's got potential. And it'll work with the goals of allowing rogue deckbuilders to shine.

While also being very reliably cheap(as there's a price cap which determines card availability).

noragar
11-25-2013, 12:47 AM
With only 8 people in the tourny, if there's, say, 4 or 5 archetype decks, wouldn't it just come down to the winner being the person who lucked into playing the archetype that nobody else was out of the eight?

poizonous
11-25-2013, 01:02 AM
With only 8 people in the tourny, if there's, say, 4 or 5 archetype decks, wouldn't it just come down to the winner being the person who lucked into playing the archetype that nobody else was out of the eight?

I am fairly certain tournaments will have 100s of players if not 1000s

bootlace
11-25-2013, 05:55 AM
This AH idea is a pretty elegant solution - it essentially just has a weekly (as Ebynfel suggests) rotating 'ban list' and no other complication to confuse players or developers. This would also make it quite easy for CZE to implement Im guessing ( further down the line ofc ;) ).

However, I'm still worried that certain common staples like burn cards/counterspells will always be cheap and widely used. That's not necessarily a bad thing however as they're sort of the nuts/bolts/screwdriver you need to build any functioning strategy. I would definitely tune in to watch these tournaments as the weekly dynamic effect coupled with a tier that tests rogue deckbuilding skills not only is fun to think about but would be a great interest to watch play out between top players.

I have no idea what the specific cut-off point would be in terms of price on AH - maybe a static # or % of the entire format in question would be inaccessible. E.g: The top x% most expensive cards won't be accessible. This would allow for the best performing commons/uncommons to also have to rotate out weekly because normally they just would not gain enough value (regardless of success in this tourney) to pass a lot of the rarer cards. Still it could revitalize the economy for commons in short bursts which would not only bring life to the economy but could also be a speculator's dream (investing in the most undervalued commons anyone?).

To ensure players don't try to manipulate the price of a certain card at the last second before the weekly freeze happens, I would suggest using the average price of the card over that week (based on the transaction history perhaps).

Niedar
11-25-2013, 07:19 AM
You can also split commons, uncommons, rares etc up into different categories with different price levels or percents for each of them. They can have however complicated algorithm they want really because the player doesn't have to manually figure out what is allowed in the format. All they should have to do is select a filter for the format in the deck builder that filters out all banned cards.

trapline
11-25-2013, 07:25 AM
I'd be more in favor of some kind of gem rotation, each week the colors or sockets change allowing for new combinations. Ban lists just take away options. If you truly want a shifting varied meta, the answer is more options. Because this is a digital tcg you could even have cards swap to different colors, or swap out keywords.