Post by: Ginyu on July 26, 2015, 12:05:30 pm
|
|
|
- reworded "Opposing Duos" in Column B
- list of denial cards added
- shards included in some of the rules
- Golden Nymph included as a ban for "The slow" (A10)
- list of denial cards added
- shards included in some of the rules
- Golden Nymph included as a ban for "The slow" (A10)
Post by: ZephyrPhantom on July 26, 2015, 12:14:03 pm
13B. The Bunch - Deck must use at least 5 distinct cards.
13C. The Bunchie - Creatures only. All cards must cost less than 6.2 quanta. (All cards must cost 6 or less quanta.)
Also, post #7117. (http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/meme/images/1/19/Llama_beta.gif/revision/latest?cb=20110820000129)
Post by: Physsion on July 26, 2015, 12:20:42 pm
For easy reference, could we get a list of denial cards as mentioned in Column B Rule 12 added to the original post?
Also, because most weekly tournaments have shards banned, they aren't mentioned on this list - for sharded play, would you mind adding Shard of Bravery to Column A Rule 10, and Shard of Focus to Column A Rule 12?
Post by: Submachine on July 26, 2015, 12:24:23 pm
That being said, I'm glad to see that these are still being used. :D
Post by: Ginyu on July 26, 2015, 12:49:18 pm
For easy reference, could we get a list of denial cards as mentioned in Column B Rule 12 added to the original post?Done.
Also, because most weekly tournaments have shards banned, they aren't mentioned on this list - for sharded play, would you mind adding Shard of Bravery to Column A Rule 10, and Shard of Focus to Column A Rule 12?
13A. The Bun - 60 card deck, reduce deck size by 3 for each card costing 3 quanta.13A: Interesting idea, might interfere with rule B8 or B10, though.
13B. The Bunch - Deck must use at least 5 distinct cards.
13C. The Bunchie - Creatures only. All cards must cost less than 6.2 quanta. (All cards must cost 6 or less quanta.)
13B: What do you mean by "destinct"? 5 different cards?
13C: "Creatures only" is very hard to balance, as everyone will simply go with Graboid or Immo-Rush, considering CC doesn't matter much. Maxwell's Demon is the only real counter to these decks, that might even get banned by B10.
Post by: ZephyrPhantom on July 26, 2015, 12:53:03 pm
A - B8/B10 just makes it a 60-cards only rule. Not really a conflict IMHO.13A. The Bun - 60 card deck, reduce deck size by 3 for each card costing 3 quanta.13A: Interesting idea, might interfere with rule B8 or B10, though.
13B. The Bunch - Deck must use at least 5 distinct cards.
13C. The Bunchie - Creatures only. All cards must cost less than 6.2 quanta. (All cards must cost 6 or less quanta.)
13B: What do you mean by "destinct"? 5 different cards?
13C: "Creatures only" is very hard to balance, as everyone will simply go with Graboid or Immo-Rush, considering CC doesn't matter much. Maxwell's Demon is the only real counter to these decks, that might even get banned by B10.
B - Pretty certain I spelled it "distinct", as the quote would show. 5 different cards, yes.
C - Willing to adjust. How does this sound?
Quote
13C. The Bunchie - All cards must cost less than 6.2 quanta. (All cards must cost 6 or less quanta.)
Post by: RootRanger on July 26, 2015, 07:16:57 pm
I appreciate that you're considering the full implications of these rules.13A. The Bun - 60 card deck, reduce deck size by 3 for each card costing 3 quanta.13A: Interesting idea, might interfere with rule B8 or B10, though.
13B. The Bunch - Deck must use at least 5 distinct cards.
13C. The Bunchie - Creatures only. All cards must cost less than 6.2 quanta. (All cards must cost 6 or less quanta.)
13B: What do you mean by "destinct"? 5 different cards?
13C: "Creatures only" is very hard to balance, as everyone will simply go with Graboid or Immo-Rush, considering CC doesn't matter much. Maxwell's Demon is the only real counter to these decks, that might even get banned by B10.
Post by: Ginyu on July 29, 2015, 03:20:48 pm
A - B8/B10 just makes it a 60-cards only rule. Not really a conflict IMHO.A: I am not sure if a 2nd 60card-set will be liked too much. The reduction possibility is a good idea, but has to be balanced. At a cost of 3, especially fire decks with Fire Bolt, Rage Potion and Fahrenheit will have a large advantage. Bows with Graboids, Earthquake and Discord are another possibility. We would need to find a good cost for this; it is okay to make different costs for unupped and upped. We might also think to replace the current 60-card-rule with a mod of this.
B - Pretty certain I spelled it "distinct", as the quote would show. 5 different cards, yes.
C - Willing to adjust. How does this sound?Quote13C. The Bunchie - All cards must cost less than 6.2 quanta. (All cards must cost 6 or less quanta.)
B: You did, I just made a typo. So, both player choose 5 cards to be banned only for their opponent, or to ban for both? The latter is easier to balance, the former makes it more strategic and could lead to OP combos in certain Rule-combinations. I am open for both.
C. Rather looks for a Column B rule, where it looks fine. Maybe even 5 or less.
Anything in this topic is free for open discussion, of course! I want to get sure several people agree with a new rule before I add it.
Post by: ZephyrPhantom on July 29, 2015, 04:08:52 pm
B. No, my intention is that each player has to use exactly 5 different cards in their deck. For example a deck of 14x Water Pillar , 6x Puffer Fish, 4x Ice Bolt, 4x Purify, and 6x Abyss Crawler would qualify as a 'valid' deck since 5 distinct cards are being used (Water Pillar, Puffer Fish, Ice Bolt, Purify, Abyss Crawler)
C. Willing to tweak it to 5 or less as long as the 6.2 joke is kept in.
Post by: tereret on July 11, 2017, 05:18:32 pm
your deck must include one and only one distinct card costing from one to six, multiple copies allowed
B14: sparky
Your deck must include at least four sparks
C13: Gambler
Your deck must have only gamble based win conditions
(Soser, mutants, chaos seed, pande, skeleton RT, discord, skull shield, fog shield, thorn shield, fate egg, dusk mantle, mindgate, icebolt, Rainbow NT, ice shield)
Notes for C13:
Win condition means your way to win is though those gambles. you can have other creatures and spells,
BUT THE CORE OF THE DECK MUST BE THE GAMBLE
BH banned, edit: in all its forms (amber nymph is considered silenced in ALL cases)
soFree is not gamble, as you end up with 100% pretty much everytime
Post by: Submachine on July 12, 2017, 02:51:49 pm
Potluck Rules predicted Wishi-Washi from Pokemon Gen 7. :)
Rule Column C 4. The wishy-washy: No permanents (other than pillars and pendulums)
(https://img.pokemondb.net/artwork/wishiwashi-school.jpg)
Post by: kaempfer13 on January 17, 2018, 11:35:13 pm
Please tell me what rules look/have been annoying to you and what you would rather have (doing only either of the two, critizicing old rules or suggesting new rules is fine too).
Post by: RapidStar_ on January 18, 2018, 08:53:00 am
I had felt like using potluck rules sometime, but always got the impression that various rules are real funstoppers. Should we maybe replace some rules?
Please tell me what rules look/have been annoying to you and what you would rather have (doing only either of the two, critizicing old rules or suggesting new rules is fine too).
Here are some things I think should be taken out:
Column A:
3. The fat: 50-card deck
4. The morbidly obese: 60-card deck
6. The pillarless: No pillars
10. The slow: 45+ cards, Golden Hourglass, Golden Nymph and Shard of Bravery banned
11. The precise: Exactly 17 pendulums
The pillar ones are a bit boring, but they are easily able to be played around so not the worst thing.
Column B:
5. The yin-yang: Opposing duos must be used (Light/Darkness, Entropy/Gravity, Time/Aether etc.); you can't use both Black Hole/Amber Nymph and Discord in the same deck
7. The 6: Exactly 6 copies of each card (not including pillars/pends)
8. The problemsolver: No cards that cost 2, 3, 6, 8 or 9 quantum
Column C:
1. The incarcerated: Cannot use Air, Life and Light cards, except pillars/pendulums
2. The knight: Cannot use Darkness, Death, Entropy and Aether cards, except pillars/pendulums
4. The wishy-washy: No permanents (other than pillars and pendulums)
7. The nub-beloved: No creatures except Dragons
12. The balanced: must have an equal number of creatures and spells.
These are just my thoughts, some may disagree. I could definitely add more in but that would pretty much be changing the whole table of rules which is not what you are looking to do. I took out the ones that seem to take away the fun aspect of PvPing. I haven't thought of any suggestions as of now but will try to think of some in the near future.
Post by: Submachine on January 18, 2018, 08:28:18 pm
We already did a fair amount of research back in the time with Spike and Dm, so I don't have much input left. For reference, here are the original rules that we reworked:
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/tournament-archive/weekly-tournament-may-25th-speedbuilding-potluck-rules-unupgraded/msg1073277/#msg1073277
Spike later discovered though that specific rules combined with others can remove too much challenge if they don't introduce a noteworthy limitation. With every change, try to aim for the sweet spot that's neither too easy nor very limiting. Experimenting with new rules in league matches might be the best way to go.
Post by: kaempfer13 on January 20, 2018, 04:01:14 pm
I agree with the orangered ones.I had felt like using potluck rules sometime, but always got the impression that various rules are real funstoppers. Should we maybe replace some rules?
Please tell me what rules look/have been annoying to you and what you would rather have (doing only either of the two, critizicing old rules or suggesting new rules is fine too).
Here are some things I think should be taken out:
Column A:
3. The fat: 50-card deck
4. The morbidly obese: 60-card deck
6. The pillarless: No pillars
10. The slow: 45+ cards, Golden Hourglass, Golden Nymph and Shard of Bravery banned
11. The precise: Exactly 17 pendulums
The pillar ones are a bit boring, but they are easily able to be played around so not the worst thing.
Column B:
5. The yin-yang: Opposing duos must be used (Light/Darkness, Entropy/Gravity, Time/Aether etc.); you can't use both Black Hole/Amber Nymph and Discord in the same deck
7. The 6: Exactly 6 copies of each card (not including pillars/pends)
8. The problemsolver: No cards that cost 2, 3, 6, 8 or 9 quantum
Column C:
1. The incarcerated: Cannot use Air, Life and Light cards, except pillars/pendulums
2. The knight: Cannot use Darkness, Death, Entropy and Aether cards, except pillars/pendulums
4. The wishy-washy: No permanents (other than pillars and pendulums)
7. The nub-beloved: No creatures except Dragons
12. The balanced: must have an equal number of creatures and spells.
These are just my thoughts, some may disagree. I could definitely add more in but that would pretty much be changing the whole table of rules which is not what you are looking to do. I took out the ones that seem to take away the fun aspect of PvPing. I haven't thought of any suggestions as of now but will try to think of some in the near future.
A: pillarless always creates confusion with pendulums still allowed. Other than causing confusion with pends it doesnt really do much.
The obese and the slow (as well as the fat) both encourage slower decks and tournaments take long enough as is. Im thinking to maybe keep the least obstrusive one of them for varieties sake (nobody is stopping you from trying a 50 card rush though its less optimal). The fact that it is exact deck size makes rt/eternity mandatory for stalls, so it kinda balances out a bit.
I dont really mind the precise, 17 quanta is definitely enough for most 30 card decks and if its too much quanta just make your deck a little bigger.
B: The sixer dumbed down every potluck i participated in. dims and ghost tend to be too good, theres always someone that tries to make ffq work, sometimes other 6 cost shields/eternity may work out and thats pretty much the meta from that rule alone. Definitely wouldnt miss it. Oops you actually meant the 6. Well its kinda uninteresting and mostly just discourages techcards. Wouldnt miss it either. The other 2 seem mostly balanced to me, they are very restrictive but in possibly interesting ways.
C: I dont really see a major issue with these, they leave 2/3rds+ of the game intact and do mix things up a bit.
As an ex-Tournament Organizer who helped rework the Potluck rules at one point, this feels nostalgic in a good way. While a single rule may not be limiting, in combination with others, they can create a situation where one deck is superior to all others, thus everyone will use that one deck.
We already did a fair amount of research back in the time with Spike and Dm, so I don't have much input left. For reference, here are the original rules that we reworked:
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/tournament-archive/weekly-tournament-may-25th-speedbuilding-potluck-rules-unupgraded/msg1073277/#msg1073277
Spike later discovered though that specific rules combined with others can remove too much challenge if they don't introduce a noteworthy limitation. With every change, try to aim for the sweet spot that's neither too easy nor very limiting. Experimenting with new rules in league matches might be the best way to go.
I read through the thread and didnt really see much discussion of the rules besides impossible combinations. Could you point me to where you actually came up with the rules and discussed them? Im especially interested in Spikes combinations.
Post by: Submachine on January 21, 2018, 11:02:41 am
I read through the thread and didnt really see much discussion of the rules besides impossible combinations. Could you point me to where you actually came up with the rules and discussed them? Im especially interested in Spikes combinations.The discussion was in the Tournament Organizer folder, which I can no longer access. There was a thread where we came up with new ideas and discussed balance. It was probably around mid-2014 if you have access to it. However, Spike's input about taking out unchallenging rules was later, can't remember where and when.