RFW FAQ

Q: What is RFW?

A: RFW stands for 'Race For Wool'. It is a competitive game played using custom maps in Minecraft, and pits teams of four against each other in a race to see who can collect wool the fastest.

Q: How is RFW played?

A: Games are played on a variety of maps, each with their own set of rules. Generally one team must collect their wool before the opposing team can do the same. In addition, each side can interact with each other from a distance using bows.

Q: What do the maps look like?

A: RFW maps are usually divided into two lanes, each about a chunk (16 blocks) or a half chunk wide. Between the two sides is the area known as the 'void lane', in which neither team can enter. This is about a chunk wide as well. The maps are set up to challenge players to get the wool, and feature dungeons, traps, obstacles, and often quite a few mobs to guard them.

Q: Is RFW PvP (player versus player)?

A: RFW maps are balanced to be about half PvP, and half PvE (player versus environment). You will spend some time fighting mobs, and some time fighting enemy players. Some maps have little to no mobs, and others make it difficult to fight the enemy team. It's all up to the map maker.

Q: How long to matches usually last?

A: A match can last as short as fifteen minutes or as long as a few hours. Certain maps take longer than others and the actions of both teams can have a huge effect on completion time.

An Analysis of the Power Creep

This was initially going to be a fuller article, but I gave up on it. Still, I put some work into it so I thought I'd leave it here.

One of the fundamental problems with any TCG is the concept known as the ‘power creep’. In order to drive players to buy new cards, Konami needs to do one of two things. First, they can create more diversified cards that allow for a greater number of play styles and more deck diversity. Second, and perhaps more obviously, Konami can develop more powerful cards. Convincing players to drop their previous decks is as easy as releasing a new deck that is even stronger. It’s simple stuff, though there is one problem: some players don’t want to switch decks.

Spending money is…well, expensive! This hobby can get very pricy if you jump from deck to deck; following the trends set by the rest of the metagame. In a perfect world players would find a strategy they enjoy using and stick with it. However, that outlook isn’t ideal for Konami. In order to make more money they need to convince players that they haven’t bought enough product. Again, it’s all about releasing more powerful and diversified cards. The problem is that this trend can’t continue forever.

Solutions – Lists and Counters

In order to keep competitive play from being oversimplified into FTKs, the forbidden and limited list is Konami’s most powerful tool for maintaining balance. Cards that are detrimental to the game are completely removed, while those that are simply too powerful at three per deck are knocked down to two or one. It’s simple, effective, and kills two birds with one stone. In addition to balancing, the list also promotes large swings in the metagame. The return of Heavy Storm had a strong influence throughout all levels of competition. Running nearly ten traps was common before the September 2011, but afterwards it was rare to see more than five. More importantly, these changes in the direction of the game help to push product. It’s hard to deny that Konami had a secondary agenda in limiting and banning four of the best tuners and one (if not the) best synchro in the game. Xyz monsters, and cards that support them, are much higher in demand as a result of the March 2012 list.

There are two aspects of the banlist that negate the power creep:

11.       The banning of a card that is simply too powerful to remain legal

22.       Introducing inconsistency by limiting the number a card or its supporters

I already mentioned the first part, so I’ll focus on the second. Lightsworn is a great example of balancing via inconsistency. Judgment Dragon is absurdly strong, but it requires a great deal of luck to summon it. This is compounded by the fact that Charge of the Light Brigade and Lumina, Lightsworn Summoner are on the banlist. Both cards were placed there in order to make Lightsworns inconsistent. It certainly worked, and the deck rarely tops at highly competitive events. Most of the time hitting a critical combo piece or a card or a key recruiter will drop the consistency of a deck dramatically. Notice that some of the best cards that let you search your deck are somewhere on the list. Things like Reinforcements of the Army, Stratos, Emergency Teleport, and Sangan are good examples of this.

The final way that Konami fixes the power creep is to introduce counters. Special summoning decks were countered with Royal Oppression and Maxx “C”. Monster Effects lose to Skill Drain, Fiendish Chain, and Effect Veiler. I could go on with examples, but needless to say nearly every aspect of this game can be countered in some form. Given enough ways to counter a card, anything can cease to be a threat. Decks rise and fall based on what counter-techs are popular at the time. Players tend to exaggerate the effects of this balancing method. Strong, consistent strategies will naturally rise to the top of the metagame. Those decks become a target for players to try and beat by running specific counter-tech, usually in the side deck. In fact, the side deck has become increasingly important over the last few formats. Back in 2010 players were calling that summer a ‘side-deck’ format. Interestingly enough, having counters on the side that would completely dismantle opposing strategies was a relatively new phenomenon.

The Flaws of Konami’s System

Let’s recap: The power creep is the result of Konami needing to convince players that they need to buy new product, and thus more diverse and incrementally stronger cards must be developed. To solve the problems presented by the power creep, the forbidden and limited lists remove extremely problematic cards from the game and reduce the consistency of other strategies. In addition, new cards are released that counter existing strategies in an effort to weaken them.

Unfortunately, these solutions overlook something very important: luck. The ways that Konami tries to balance this game do not account for random chance that helps a player. Let’s go back through the methods listed earlier. To start with, creating artificial inconsistencies would be a great way to limit the effectiveness of a strategy…in theory. Real life results are often very different. Cards like Gateway of the Six and Black Whirlwind were limited to reduce the likelihood that players would open with them. Yet, it’s still possible for a Samurai duelist to star the duel off with United, Gateway, and an easy way to get Shi En. A Lightsworn player can still mill Wulf consistently and drop Judgment Dragon whenever they like so long as they are lucky enough.

Remember that the second method for creating balance is to introduce counters. There’s a catch here too: if you don’t have that specific counter then you’re out of luck. Sure, there are a number of cards that can stop a first turn Wind-Up loop. Effect Veiler, Maxx “C”, D.D. Crow and a few others can put an end to it. But what happens when you don’t open with those cards? Yep, you’re down to one card in hand. Likewise if other heavily combo-oriented decks like Infernity or Inzektor go off and you lack the appropriate counter, you’re going to lose. There’s nothing you can do about it, the plays are just too good. You cannot crack an Infernity setup which has Infernity Barrier, Void Ogre Dragon, and other backrow. It’s been said before, and it needs to be said again: counters are not a valid argument when discussing the power of a card. Chaos Emperor Dragon loses out to Effect Veiler and Bottomless Trap Hole, but I’d be hard pressed to find someone who would argue that it should be legal.

This poses an important question. Why should I be punished because I didn’t draw into a hand trap in the first two turns? The first six cards you draw are the most important, even more so than the rest of your deck. Skill is minimized in the place of luck in many cases. Power cards require only that you draw into them, and explosive combos make themselves available randomly rather than through planning. One analogy that I’m found of is the power weapons in Halo (yes, as in the video game). Weapons that dominate the battlefield and give a huge advantage to the team that controls them are not randomly distributed. Instead they are claimed by players who have the best planning and skill.

Sure, being a better player is going to get you more wins overall, but how many matches will the better player lose to sheer luck? Yes, this is a card game and luck will always be a huge factor but minimizing it should be Konami’s biggest priority.

Patching Holes

In order to reduce luck as much as possible Konami needs to do two things: ban more cards, and introduce more game mechanics that promote resource management or acquisition rather than OTK combos. Making more cards forbidden helps to deter the luck factor of drawing into those ‘game-winners’ like Black Luster Soldier, Monster Reborn, Dark Hole, Heavy Storm, or Future Fusion. A Dragon player who opens with Future Fusion will almost always win against one who does not. It’s just that good. Once again you have a player being punished because he/she was not lucky enough. By eliminating those cards altogether the opening hand decreases in importance.

Drawing cards is simply too slow for the current metagame. In fact, it was never really a viable option for players. If you want to win, you’re going to have to generate advantage on your own. This causes conflicts with the idea that counters help to balance other powerful cards. If you don’t draw the counter you’re bound to get stomped on. Many combos are only stoppable through unsearchable.

Out of the Lane #1

Belief is a powerful tool for the foolish, but a dangerous trap for the wise. A man who believes the sun will rise each day is shocked when it does not. A man who believes he will live forever is likewise surprised by his finite life. Truth is difficult to determine, and perhaps impossible given the limitations of human perception. We cannot know, and must believe. Ideas are forged to explain a phenomenon, but it is the belief in an answer that ultimately becomes true. Yet, sometimes those beliefs are disproven. This is the trap of believing what you cannot know: it becomes possible to dismiss arguments against your belief. A strong will allows people to hold on to something even if it is wrong. To believe in something, or someone, is to close off the posibility of doubt. If it is true, then you are successful. If not, then you are in danger of beling close-minded .