|
|
Post by Ben-Ra on Jan 18, 2004 14:50:18 GMT -5
This seemed to be the best forum to put this in since it isn't really about cards or rules per se, and it does involve live meetings.
Anyway, if there are gatherings, would people like to have formal tournaments or just casual play? And if yes on tourneys, rules would need to be agreed upon.
I've been poking around asian sites to see what kind of rules they use, but it's been tricky. Babelfish is like having a 93-year-old retard for a translator. What I have been able to gather is that E-rated cards are often restricted, and that the maps which will be used are usually known in advance (so decks can be made best to work on them).
I also found info on a league (long since over), which was interesting. They played 30 games, on 30 different maps, and if you used a color/neutral in a game, you couldn't use it again for the next one. In other words, if you used any red cards at all in game 1, you couldn't use any in game 2. In game 3 you could use red again. Also, spells and idols (which were not considered as neutral creatures for the previous restriction), could only be used every other match, like the colors, but relating to each individual spell/idol (I'm 95% sure on this one). So if you used Land Protect in game 1, you couldn't use it in game 2, but could in game 3, etc. Also, for the first 15 games each player picked a single card which they could use in every game if they wanted to, and then they had to pick a different one for the second 15 games. Also, all games either had to be 4 players or 3 players and a preconstructed AI called Village Daughter who had a reasonably good (to my eye anyway) neutral deck. I'm not necessarily suggesting any of those rules, just thought people might be interested.
Personally, I'd like some kind of multi-game structure where points are awarded for positions 1-4, kind of like in racing games, and whoever has the most points at the end of the set number of games wins the tourney, or something. But anyway, I've rambled enough, if anyone has any input, please post!
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Penquin on Jan 18, 2004 19:32:46 GMT -5
I see using a points system like the one you described. I can also see using a "lap knockout" method each round to keep the theme of the racing games. For instance, if there are say 15 rounds, each round the lowest ranked player is dropped off. That would give a chance for some people to "come from behind" points wise if they had a few bad games to start off with. Each round would have enough heats in them to do a round robin twice. So everyone plays against each opponent twice each round.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheTampaCepter on Jan 19, 2004 10:21:33 GMT -5
Interesting ideas guys
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Penquin on Jan 19, 2004 22:51:46 GMT -5
I could also see a last man standing heat slipped in somewhere. For instance, if there were four players in a heat vs. eachother round robin style, after they played eachother twice, they would all have 1 final game of 4 player vs. The person that won that battle would recieve bonus points in addition to any heat points he had.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Penquin on Jan 20, 2004 15:43:32 GMT -5
Does anyone know if there is a "total play time" or "hours elapsed" statisic that can be seen somewhere?
|
|
|
|
Post by ExMortis on Jan 20, 2004 22:04:54 GMT -5
Yeah, on your Cepter's menu, choose "results." All Maps, Total Time.
As for a tournament, based on time constraints of what would probably be a single day event, I would think multiple TVs running four player matches would be the ideal, and a point-based system like what has been mentioned.
I'd like to see a 2 on 2 team tournament as well, one (two?) could come up with some really interesting two-deck strategies, I think.
|
|
|
|
Post by armadi on Jan 20, 2004 22:47:54 GMT -5
A team could use this "combo":
Holy Word X and Fly. One of the teammates would then move 20 spaces!
|
|
|
|
Post by Ben-Ra on Jan 21, 2004 7:52:41 GMT -5
In general, it seems like foreign competitions/tournaments are 4-player games, probably just because of time constraints.
I'm also in favor of some team events as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by nightmare on Feb 5, 2004 9:25:10 GMT -5
random thoughts:
would you put a limit on what cards would be played? Off hand, the only one I could think of really banning (E-cards are OK, I guess) would be Haunt. This is the most unfun spell ever -let the computer screw up your deck by making sub-optimal plays!!!! Er....no thanks.
The rules for the league seem very, um....complex. over-involved. crazy. I think simpler, more elegant rules could be produced for a fun league.
Knowing maps before hand in this game is a necessity.
/random thoughts
|
|
|
|
Post by Ben-Ra on Feb 5, 2004 17:20:33 GMT -5
I don't see Haunt as all that bad. It sucks to have it played on you, but so do a lot of other cards. Plus, it's very possible for it to have no negative effect whatsoever. In general I'm more concerned with cards that definitely hurt me. At this time, I don't see any card as ban-worthy.
From our perspective the league's rules on deck construction do seem pretty cumbersome, I agree. On the other hand, there was probably a reason for them. Most areas don't have enough players for a full-blown league anyway so I guess it's kind of irrelevant. I don't see such rules being necessary for a tournament, which is something more likely to happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scamp on Feb 21, 2004 4:42:08 GMT -5
I think Haunt is so bad. True, something MAY not happen, but then again something might. It's bad because it could potentially devastate you, and you can't do anything about it. With other spells and stuff, you can at least cancel them out afterwards with another spell.
Another card that should be banned (or at least restricted) is bind. At least, I think it's bind. The one where you cast it and your opponent misses their next turn. I suppose it's not so bad in a 4-player game, though.
I like the 'league' idea better than a 'tournament' idea simply because of time. It's not so hard to play one or two games a week, but to cram an entire tournament into even a weekend would be madness.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ben-Ra on Feb 21, 2004 14:20:49 GMT -5
So, your criteria for banning cards is that they're bad (or potentially bad) and can't be stopped or canceled? If that's the case, better ban all direct-damage spells, all spells that rob you like Pain and Drain Magic, as well as Suppression, Mesmerize, etc. And actually, you CAN stop Bind and Haunt (as well as a lot of other spells), with Barrier or Anti-Magic. You just have to think ahead.
I actually agree with you about leagues being better as a rule, the problem being that if people are getting together from out of town (in relation to each other), a single event is more practical than playing each other repeatedly over time (unless everyone else on this forum has a lot more money than me).
|
|
|
|
Post by ExMortis on Feb 21, 2004 15:50:49 GMT -5
A tournament would most likely consist of four-player matches. Haunt and Bind (or any card which has a negative effect on one Cepter), while really very annoying in one-on-one, are only marginally useful with three other players. You're essentially spending money to give the two players you DIDN'T Haunt or Bind a free boost. A deck focused on shutting someone down, if you concentrate only on one person, will maybe get you third place. If you try to spread it around, well, you'll probably lose.
Additionally, I've seen Haunt cancelled when the affected cepter casted a different status effect on himself.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scamp on Feb 24, 2004 4:31:06 GMT -5
So, your criteria for banning cards is that they're bad (or potentially bad) and can't be stopped or canceled? If that's the case, better ban all direct-damage spells, all spells that rob you like Pain and Drain Magic, as well as Suppression, Mesmerize, etc. And actually, you CAN stop Bind and Haunt (as well as a lot of other spells), with Barrier or Anti-Magic. You just have to think ahead. I actually agree with you about leagues being better as a rule, the problem being that if people are getting together from out of town (in relation to each other), a single event is more practical than playing each other repeatedly over time (unless everyone else on this forum has a lot more money than me). No, you missed my point. Kinda. Imagine a fighting game where the computer takes over for you for five seconds. Or, imagine a card in a game like Magic the Gathering where you have to let some random guy play your deck for a few turns. It's kind of like that. And anyway, if you're going to bring up the point that you CAN stop bind and haunt, it defeats your earlier point about having to ban pain and drain magic and so forth. Bind is ban or restrict-worthy in a 2-player game because IMO it's too good. You're going to see every deck contain 4 of these. If you stop it with something like anti-magic or barrier, then your opponent will just hold on to them until it wears off. Bam, 1-4 free turns. The price is pretty cheap and since you get to draw cards to replace playing the bind... I just think it's too good. As for haunt, there are already enough random factors in the game as it is. Under haunt the computer could make you go around the map the wrong way, replace your old willow with a wall of fire, use your only defense item to save a goblin, cast your combo spells for no good reason... If I lose I'd like it to be because the other deck was well-designed or I make my own critical errors. There's already enough randomness as it is with the die and card-drawing. The later in the game the spell is used, the more potential for a major screw-up that you didn't cause. I mean, there's a reason why computers aren't fun to play after a while. Anyway, that's just my opinion. As for the 1-day thing, I just don't think Culdcept is a game suited for such an event. I don't know how long a 4-player game can go, and setting up and playing multiple games with ratings and scores and such would take a lot of effort. But if you can do it, go ahead. I'd love to hear some 'tourney results'. Oh yeah, and what about looking at other people's hands? Should there be some sort of system where people have to look away or something like that? It'd be cool if you could hook it up to four tvs or something like that... |
|
|
|
Post by ChamoftheGemini on Feb 24, 2004 18:42:03 GMT -5
The first thing that went through my mind for a banned or restricted listing were cards like the idols. They remind me of choice Artifacts from the early years for MTG, that have been placed on the banned/restricted list, respectivly. And, Any of the "E" cards seem appropriate for the banned list due to time played issues.
|
|
