Combat as a strategy

elotar wrote:

When I see real arguments I address them. For personal attacks, fanboyism and stupid things proven wrong years ago I do not bother.

Perfect !

So we can talk ! I also dislike personal attacks ! And I looooove a good argument.

As for stupid things proven wrong years ago, not everybody was present at those ancient times so I guess we have to endure the younglings and explain to them how they are wrong. At least, it is how I see these things.

So let's begin !

First we have to define this thread subject which seems to be if and how BCP and VEKN should address a potential problem with the way combat works in our beloved game.

And I guess the "if" is more important since if we decide (with good and proven arguments) that there is no real problem, the "how" becomes irrelevant.

So let's begin.

I, for example, think that combat as it is is a problem for the game.

It is IMO one of the main parts of what is primordial to the game : minions taking actions.
With a combat occuring each time an action is blocked (we will not count the special cases of obedience or mirror walk or any similar effects) we can safely say that combat WILL occur many times during a regular game of VtES.

And we can also safely assert that one major problem we have is embracing new players.

And so, IMO combat has a problem which is its complexity.

If I am correct we have :
- before range
- chose range
- before strikes
- strikes (which is also divided in many phases)
- press step
- end of round
- end of combat

And the "strikes" phase has maaaany sub phases which I will not list here because I would certainly forget 1 or 2 of them and maybe more...

How many times have you seen a player (even a seasoned one !) declare a taste of vitae and then wanting to press ?
I for example saw it many times ! And IMO this complexity brings not enough good things versus too many bad things.

Timo wrote:

As for stupid things proven wrong years ago, not everybody was present at those ancient times so I guess we have to endure the younglings and explain to them how they are wrong. At least, it is how I see these things.

Wrong. Younglings have to use magic called internet and read old topics. Solution for the complexity of combat is there as well as many other things you haven't thought of.

elotar wrote:

stuff

How about you start by explaining what you mean by "abusive". To me, that word doesn't really tell anything.

Once we know, we can discuss how to change the game for the better.

elotar wrote:

Wrong. Younglings have to use magic called internet and read old topics. Solution for the complexity of combat is there as well as many other things you haven't thought of.

No. All relevant information regarding a topic should be inside that topic, if people consider it worth the discussion, they should spend the time articulating their viewpoint. If they cannot bother to do it at length, the least they can do is to provide accurate links to earlier discussions with quotes. Proof is on the person making a claim, setting the stage or framing the situation for others to respond to.

For example if we wanted to discuss cheating in tournament VTES environment, with your logic above I could handwave arguments away claiming people have not used the magic of internet to read previous discussions. Instead it's much better if I provide insight that I mean the 2007 Hungarian ECQ report that has over 200 replies over said fact, meaning specifically this response; groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/0krQKEnRyS0/63hfxYi0Cn4J and the part of it.

> This was NOT an argument. My favorite kind of mocking joke that I
> prefer to use instead of the words like "bullshit" and other insults.

No.

You created a hypothetical situation, asked another person how they
would respond to it, and then answered that question for them before
they had a chance to do so themselves. This is arrogant, insulting,
and worthless as a rhetorical argument. It's also what's known as a
"straw man" - you've set up your opponent's position and attacked it,
rather than attacking an actual position your opponent established.

With that everyone can read the original context, the piece I'm specifically referring is quoted to save everyone's time and there's no ambiguity on what it might be. I have faint ideas without quotes on those threads along with others as I read them back when I was last active, but if I expected new people or even the "older" people on this young forum to know them, I would be arrogant elitist.

You say "younglings have to use magic of the internet and read old topics." With VTES that's on this forum along with the 25 years worth of extint and sometimes obscure newsgroup discussions. Some that once were official rulings and some that still remain so. Just to ensure you do not need to spend time to articulate your arguments clearer.

I recommend you provide links to said discussions you're referring and quote them out in the future for benefit of all people involved. If you do not, I'm factually right to claim the earlier "solution to combat" you referred to in older topics is this one that was put into place and therefore solved the combat;

groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/MrbngKTViIo/NcydyTV9rHkJ

Johannes wrote:

Looking at the new tournament rules I can only see one thing: there
won´t be any combat decks in the finals anymore.

The rules make deals practically useless. How can a combat deck go to
the final? Make deals.

The finals will now be (even more than now) a boring mix of hardcore s&b
and breed decks with some sprinkeled vote and intercept.

Whoever (was it the obscure Inner Circle?) did these rules doesn´t have
a very good idea of high level tournament play, in my opinion.
...
I hate self replying, but just to undermine my point:

Some time ago the seat-changing votes have been eliminated. I predicted
a very similiar thing: the decrease of vote decks in finals. And exactly
that happened, look at the largest tournament this year (EC LCQ), the
finals consisted of : 2x S&B, 3x Breed.

Some things really don't age all that well, eh?

elotar wrote:

Timo wrote:

As for stupid things proven wrong years ago, not everybody was present at those ancient times so I guess we have to endure the younglings and explain to them how they are wrong. At least, it is how I see these things.

Wrong. Younglings have to use magic called internet and read old topics. Solution for the complexity of combat is there as well as many other things you haven't thought of.

I disagree with your statement but someone more educated than I am have already said that with arguments and examples. But it is not the topic we have here.

And also you quote a (very) small part of what I said and you disagree ! (With an argument which is good even if I find it slim).

But for the actual topic of "combat as a strategy" you say very little actually except for combat being "stupid" "abusive" and "broken". And for the things I argumented you "adress" nothing for the moment. (And for the things you stated I see no argument, being good or bad one).

Timo wrote:

And so, IMO combat has a problem which is its complexity.

If I am correct we have :
- before range
- chose range
- before strikes
- strikes (which is also divided in many phases)
- press step
- end of round
- end of combat

And the "strikes" phase has maaaany sub phases which I will not list here because I would certainly forget 1 or 2 of them and maybe more...

And that’s before even getting into sequencing, where technically, each phase of combat requires players to pass “impulse” before the next phase starts. So each combat where no cards are played technically should have two players saying “pass” ~20 times before resolving hands for 1. That’s the bare minimum.

I can see how all of this is concerning to those who worry about “growing” the game. The thing is, there are those of us who see VTES for what it is: an arty, experimental attempt at a second major CCG. Whenever I play the game, it is done with the foreknowledge of the games idiosyncrasies. And it’s always a fun time for me because I play casually while embracing those idiosyncrasies. This is the mindset of most who play the game casually and are not involved in growing the game.