Champions of Cardhuntria: Discussion/FAQ/Grouping

Personally I think that no restrictions is significantly better than a restriction, based on the following reasons.

1. Without a restriction, there is no incentive to cheat, in fact, there is NO way to cheat at all. This eases the burden on all of our players and refs, something crucial for a well-run tournament.

2. In the wonderful world of Cardhunter, Legendary does not necessarily equate to "better". As all of you know, there are many many items that are common or uncommon that are just as good, if not better, than Legendary equipment. *Cough Cough Bejeweled Shortsword. Items with higher rarity simply mean the individual cards on that item are rarer, not necessarily better. Also, if this rule was put in place to even the ground between veterans and newer players, why shouldn't there be a limit on the number of epics a player can use? After all, veterans have a significantly larger collection of those too.

3. Lastly, it makes gameplay stale and repetitive. Limiting each player to one Legendary only encourages singular, repetitive, builds. (Think Cult of the Bejeweled). Besides making it boring, it also severely limits wizards more so than warriors, further limiting players to standard, basic options.

In theory, the One Legendary restriction has good intentions; it lets newer players have an opportunity to stand on even ground with older folks, but in reality the negative impacts simply do not outweigh the positive ones.

 

Scarponi definitely captures the spirit and thrill of the matter, though you offer some very constructive points, Fif.

The main basis of the rule is IMPRESSIONS of newer players [that more legendaries gives an unfair advantage], but I'm actually a bit curious now.

Other than duplicated cards [which raise rarity], what really can you only find at legendary tier, that you can't make up with two more blended items?

It seems like one legendary really just focuses your build, while multiple legendaries allows for more boring min-maxing of concept [Vibrant Pain, Blue Destruction].

Of course, there's such a regular debate by new players on the matter in game chat, that it's all just a headache..

Well, no restrictions could mean I could get rid of the loadouts altogether, which definitely frees up a lot of stress for everyone involved.
So it's certainly tempting.

I'd definitely love to heard some feedback from participants [current or planning to join] about the matter.

After all, if noone has any objections to no-restrictions to begin with, it's a moot topic and we can just dismiss the rule.

 

I agree with Fifjunior's points.
I believe that removing legendary restriction will improve diversity and balance between classes. We had recently tournament with a very restrictive rules regarding items (Peasant Tournament) and as a result most parties were quite similar (wizards were almost extinct, most warriors used similar equipment).

 

As you said, the legendaries make up for more reliable decks, because there are often more copies of a good card.

To answer your question, how do you want to replace searing pain with an non-legendary item? Or Skull of Savage Illjin?

The one legendary rule may hurt wizards more than others, but you can make a good control wizard without legendaries.

 

I'm not sure if you're pushing for or against, or WHAT you're pushing for or against

By the sound of your points though, you seem to be stating that restricting legendaries seems to be a good thing, in terms of keeping new players balanced.

 

I stated just some facts. And the fact is, that for keeping the balancing between classes allowing all legendaries can be a good thing. But I think that mages can be good even without legendaries.
For keeping balance between players the one legendary rule is great.
What is more important for you?

 

Thanks, that makes it simple.
I'll stick with the rule for this tournament and probably remove it for future ones

 

can I join more than 1 team - subbing someone in for me if both teams end up being matched?

 

No you can't be in more than 1 team.

 

While that title reward is tempting (even though I barely use the forums any more) not sure if I'm interested enough. Really wish we had the ability to ping squares to communicate with our allies easier. That's my biggest problem with co-op so far... hard to really point out squares.

Anyway, good luck and it seems like fun.

 

I think tile pinging is more desired by players than 'endless/randomized pve mode' and 'fixed movement card activation' combined.

Thanks for the support, a bit disappointed you're not participating

 

I agree with Stexe, also because I am on "vacation" in another country it would be VERY hard for me to find specific dates to play - I might say I can play the next day and I might have to leave somewhere.
If it wasnt for that I probably would have played.

 

Well, devs willing- and assuming I can get this tournament cleared- I'm planning future tournaments [without co-op elements].
So perhaps then

 

Hi @DunDunDun if you could add me to "looking for group\party" i will be glad...

 

Yay, up to 50% of the minimum required number of teams

@Scarponi may get out of having to run a team of one character by himself after all!


But, like, lets not rush into that decision, it's still something I'd like to see

 

Looking for a team. Preferably good.

 

I'm up for this! Still, i hope there will not be volcanoes here !

 

Looking for party :3

 

@Ezio @harels84 @Eren @orian34 @ciopo

You all may consider making a team from among yourselves

 

This is where I sign up for our team right?