.Zephyr. said:

God I hate how often this article gets quoted. It is flawed on a fundamental level and should pretty much be ignored. Case in point. He goes on and on about how winning is the only thing that matters at any cost that is not directly in contradiction to the rules, and then goes on about how Akuma is given a soft ban, despite the fact he is a playable character, because he is so powerful. You can't spend 90% of your article railing on a single point and then completely contradict it using the very reasoning you've been declaring as flawed.

I'm not claiming its perfect article. I just think that "unfair" etc are really ambiguous terms and game has to defend its balance without players enforcing some non ruling based honor code to fix balance. If given card/character is officially banned by tournament organizers it is the rule of this torment that is clear and enforceable. The point of this article is not paying much attention to whining that certain tactic is cheap etc when it works and is not banned by the rules.

I was referring mainly to Apeirophobia being called cheap - if its too powerful it needs fix not community labeling it as cheap and not playing it or worse allow playing it but only in a "honorable way" whatever that would mean.

You seem to have missed the point: the point is no vague rules of fairness that cant be defined and have not much sense. If TO decides to ban one character it is clear and enforceable rule of the tournament. It is much different from claiming some undefined type of play is cheap and dishonorable etc stupid names.

Player should focus to do as good as possible constrained by clear rules. Ograniser is to ensure those rules make good play fun. Banning one character is Organiser decission and player just follows it. I don't see how it contradicts anything… The orginiser just finds Akuma vs Akuma game not fun and decides to play a different game with no Akuma, also this paragraph clearly states its "limit of Play to Win", a situation where its clear a game is broken without adding some rule, and adding this clear rule makes the game good again.

Penfold said:

As jhaelen says, the difference w/ Akuma is adequately explained so that there is no major contradiction in my mind.  I'm not sure the article is that valuable, mainly it just says "stop whining, bitch" and tells you it's OK to ruin people's fun who are less experienced than you or don't know the cheap tricks you do.  If you're the sort of person who gets their jollies off beating up noobs, this is of course exactly what you want to hear - and so you're going to think Sirlin is the greatest dude ever.  The article applies well to high level gameplay but I feel is used inappropriately far more often to apply to ANY level of gameplay.  ie - it's too often used as an excuse for obnoxious behavior.

I agree that beating up players weaker than you and claiming Sirlin made me do it doesn't make much sense. But what "should" a better player do is still an interesting question. I think some kind of handicap like intentionaly weaker deck or a play designed to teach like setting up some play riddles is better than just playing badly so your opponent can beat you - this way new player might win, but will not improve in the game much as hes playing against something that doesn't make much sense, its also hard for better player to decide what moves are "cheap" whatever that means. There's probably no one size fits all answer, but some tips might be useful. One thing i found interesting is swapping decks and checking is one sided play more of  a deckbuilding issue or play issue.

 That is hogwash. It was clearly designed to be a playable character. To use an honor code of "no Akuma" or have an organizer ban the character because it is "cheap" is a complete violation of his entire thesis. He cannot "explain it" well enough. If this were a scholarly paper needed to be defended he would have been laughed out of the room at my Uni.

And it isn't like the Ythian deck at all. The Ythian deck was specifically designed to NOT be a player deck. It's sole purpose was to be used by the tournament directors as the "boss" to fight at the end of the tournament. It was never a player deck, nor were its cards ever able to be used in a players deck.

The equivalent was the Silver Gate, Large Man, A Better Offer deck capable of winning turn 1 or the Endless Interrogation, Magah Birds, Seventy Steps deck.

You can attempt to defend it, but it rings as false and manufactured as his own. It is a legal character any player can choose. That it is clearly better than others actually supports his point about skill and doing what it takes to win and making no excuses. You want to determine the best player, give them all Akuma. The player with the best fast twitch muscles and able to anticipate his opponents first action will win. Everything else is  a conceit. And that is the thing. He was the best in a truncated format. Who knows if he would have made it to the top if everyone were using Akuma. His game doesn't involve luck at all (outside of random pairings). Ours does. Even the most broken deck with the most abusive cards can get the wrong shuffle.

But I can see there will be no changing anyone's mind so I stop here.

Cheap tricks should probably be in quotes there, they aren't necessarily cheap - but often appear that way to a less experienced player. For instance, a new player here first thought Huang Hun was ridiculously broken.  Now with more experience he understands the drawbacks better and no longer believes this.

Anyway… I have a lot of experience in minis wargaming and have more experience dealing with it in that context.  Swapping decks/armies is a useful thing to do to show people that something isn't as overpowered as they think, but can be more problematic with decks because a deck really CAN suck tremendously if the player has no idea what they're doing yet.  So, you swap, the "OP" deck still wins over the crappy one despite having a veteran player, and you've just reinforced their perception that that faction or card is overpowered.  So be careful if you do this that they understand the intent and don't draw the wrong conclusions.

In a minis game I'd be pointing out threats before they happen, ranking them, showing them their options and explaining the pros and cons of each.  But that's much harder in a card game that relies so much on hidden information.  You can't just say "Hey look, these swordsmen are about to charge you next turn - you'd better do something about it".  When the cards that will be attacking you aren't on the table yet, it's harder to see the threat.  So, I think with new players you want to start out emphasizing that they shouldn't leave stories with no defenders, to assume that 1-2 new characters will appear and to make guesses based on the opponent's factions and how their domains are laid out on what sort they might be, stuff like that.  Surprises are common, but you may at least know some general things about what could happen.  You shouldn't be too surprised if Cthulhu destroys something, or Syndicate exhausts your dudes, or if Miskatonic has more Investigation than you do, etc…

You can however point out what the cards on the table can do and talk about cards they've seen in prior games that haven't come out yet but which might complete a combo or otherwise build on what already exists.  Your opponent likely has some sort of goal in mind - a card he's saving up to play or some situation he needs to fulfill in order to unleash an Event.  Can you recognize them before they happen rather than walking into them?

So basically with a new player I think you want to do some coaching.  If their deck isn't working well, help them identify cards which aren't pulling their weight and go through the binder with them to look for possible replacements.  Talk about how certain cards can work together, or options for dealing with a card they currently are having trouble with.  It's really important to explain the reasons WHY you suggest changes in cards or play or else they won't get the right lessons from it.  Stress that in most cases it's not about this card being better than that one, it's that the new card fits better into the deck concept and in a different deck the original card might be the better choice.

I do believe that you want to give weaker players some challenge.  You will improve faster by playing someone stronger than yourself or a deck stronger than your own.  But you also want to give them the tutoring that goes along with it to help them understand how to better meet that challenge rather than just rubbing their face in how badly you can beat them.

 If you are playing in a serious competition and everyone there is aware that the purpose is to win playing the game fairly (i.e. not cheating by failing to properly randomize your deck, or swapping out cards or intentionally not resolving passives or forced effects) then there is no problem with everyone showing up with their "A" game and their most killer deck. I know players who say if your opponent is having fun under these conditions you are doing it wrong.

But social play and local tournaments against a mix of casual and serious players those decks are more likely to destroy your meta rather than elevate your own play.

There is such a thing as handicapping yourself, and thereby still allow you to play at your own personal highest level but it also decreasing the gap between you and your opponents. "Fun" decks that are based on crazy ideas or wild combos or Lovecraftian themes eschewing efficiency and synergy as the primary and secondary objectives of a deck in favor of attempting to create a more balanced game between you and your opponents makes plenty of sense. If I play a deck based entirely on The Dunwhich Horror the deck is capable of winning (it contains enough cards in the right proportions that it is statistically capable of winning) and I play it against a newer players semi-tuned deck made from three or four sets I've greatly reduced the gap between our play level. We can both enjoy the game, I'm challenged playing a deck that is sub-optimal and he has a fighting chance because the game doesn't end the first time he makes a play mistake or draws a card that is simply too inefficient to be put in a competitive deck where it is not part of a killer combo, and thereby falls behind in tempo.

I've played one of Hata's killer Cthulhu decks… it was a brutal game where the only thing I learned back then is he was WAY better a player and deck builder than me. I didn't enjoy the game at all (except being able to say I was smoked by James). I've played one of Damon's competitive decks and was also beaten. Badly. He then put it away and said lets play a game for fun. IT was some crazy Miskatonic, Syndicate, Agency deck. It was fun to play against and did some outlandish things. I beat him 3 out of 5 and I learned a lot from that round of games. The atmosphere was more relaxed and the game wasn't over turn three. I'm sad I won't be able to make Gencon because I was hoping to play him again. Not his tier 1 deck but his fun decks.

The Sirlin article devalues playing games for reasons other than just winning, which is problematic considering that the vast majority of consumers play with those other reasons as their priority.

Penfold said:

Yes, this is a big part of the problem.  The other part is that too many people won't admit they are casual players.  Far too many people want to pretend to be championship contenders and strut around mocking fun play and acting like in THEIR world only the top decks/armies/cards/whatever need apply.

The fact is, only a very few players can be at the top and if the question even comes up - you're probably not one of them.  Then too, even the top players are only playing in a high level tournament a few times a year and spend a lot of their time playing more socially too.

Playing fun decks is a great way to help even up the odds, as well as learn something new yourself.  Not always, but sometimes you might discover a new idea that actually works fairly well or can be taken to a higher level with some tuning.

dboeren said:

Having read almost every article by Sirlin I mostly admire his grasp of 'game design' and I'd wish every game developer knew his articles. Too often I'm seeing game designers repeat design mistakes of others, unfortunately sometimes also in FFG's games.

There are other websites and blogs worth reading if you're interested in game design, but I definitely see Sirlin's as one of them, and imho, it's one of the more accessible.

@Penfold: "That is hogwash. It was clearly designed to be a playable character." Of course it's designed as a 'playable' character, just like the Yithian deck was designed to be 'playable'. But it also 'clearly' wasn't designed to be used in a (serious) tournament of any kind.

I agree, though, that unless someone manages to dig out quotes from the game's actual designers this boils down to a clash of opinions, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Hmm i guess we see something completely different in this article. It is for competitive wanabies who need to decide do they want to improve and play more competitive or not. If youre not trying to play at competitive level this article is just a curiosity not a guide how to play. If you want to compete in tournaments you need to change approach and play game everyone plays not your houserule with no cheap moves. If you keep labelling problems as "cheap" and dont try to solve them or dont use efficent tactics because you dont like easy way it will make learning much harder for no good reason.

To me this article says "stop whining something is OP, when you learn the game better you'll see it has it weak points and the game will change" and "enforcing your rules of fun is something that can seriously prevent you from doing better at a game because you spend efford not on playing the game but on playing a different game". I do not thing playing for fun is bad in any way, but it is not competitive play and such play just has different criteria. For example balance is something that cant be really preserved by designer in a fun game as thouse rules of fun vary for each group and you dont know what will be "unfair chaep move".

Its also important to say competitive spirit needs equal chances. So if your opponent has limited pool  and doesnt want to play as good as possible its not really a competitive game.

Akuma case: yes, playing to win means you pick Akuma. The point is not "play to win by not choosing Akuma". Point is "Akuma vs Akuma is a not fun game no one wants to play it". Ppl decided as a competitive community to play a different game without Akuma and it is a clear rule added by community. If you want to be competitive there might be some rules outside of game rules that are there. They still are not vague "unfair" rules but rather like magah birds that was banned because its not interesting competitive game if there is only one type of deck viable. The fact that game creators dont label Akuma as untournament and community did it instead shows lack of creators engagement in competitive scene. (or Akuma is not broken and whole community is not competitive enough to find its weak points, but that seems absurd)

We don't use Decendant Eibon and Rats in my group. I dont think it makes play less fun and still can be competition here, but it is not in competitive spirit of playing a game that is official tournament version and finding Decendants flaws. If i played my no decendant version, got good, and then wanted to start in tournaments i would have to learn how to deal with this guy or use him myself. The more rules like this that constrain you the more different game youll end up playing. And it doesnt help to get better at the tournament game.

btw Fun decks are also essential for competitive players as stated in part 3 of this article series. Exploration is also important, not only perfection in what already works.

jhaelen said:

Except it is not. The deck and every card in it is illegal for play and was clearly said by FFG as such. The decks existence was purely a Boss for a specific tournament. It had no legality for play and was never intended for play by players but as a challenge deck to be played against. It is clearly a different thing entirely, and if you don't believe so 'd recommend asking FFG.

For a while last year Damon was running around with one at tournaments he attended based on the Comedia del'Arte that had symbols marking it as illegal for play.

Penfold said:

I'm not sure what your intention behind this post was, so I'm going to assume there's some kind of misunderstanding here. Let me try to explain my argument again:

Here's what the Wikipedia article is saying about the Yithian deck:

"The Yithian deck was a purposely unbalanced deck, ignoring normal deck-building rules and featuring overpowered cards representing Yithians. Since these cards are so overpowered, they are illegal in normal tournament play."

I believe this to be accurate. Do you agree, Penfold?

Now, what I'm saying is that "the Akuma character was a purposely unbalanced character, ignoring normal character-creation rules and featuring overpowered abilties."

Notice the similarity?

If you also agree with this, then it's quite easy to see why I believe that Akuma was never intended to be legal "in normal tournament play".

It was a hidden character for a reason. I doubt anyone would believe using god-mode in doom was allowed in a tournament because it was 'part of the game'.

So, if anyone wants to convince me otherwise, I'd like to see a quote from one of Street Fighter's developers, designers or producers, that they indeed intended that character to be tournament-legal.

 The deck is not legal at all in anyway. It was designed to be illegal. That is the difference. The rules of the game at the time included a statement making the deck illegal for play, not just tournament play, even casual play. The only way this could be equivelent was if Akuma was not a playable character and someone hacked the game pre-tournament so they could play him. Akuma was always intended to be able to be played by the games manufacturer, you just had to work at it. That is the fundamental difference.

Penfold said:

You say: "Akuma was always intended to be able to be played by the games manufacturer, you just had to work at it."

I say "Akuma was never intended to be played at a tournament by the games manufacturer."

Since neither of us can apparently prove their point, just let it rest. You're just trying to dodge the issue by playing word games:

It doesn't matter if the Yithian deck is technically illegal. Every deck created using the guidelines in the Call of Cthulhu Core Set is illegal! So following your reasoning the core set is unplayable - and that's a ridiculous claim.

I'm done arguing here - the thread's completely off-topic, anyway.