Rising VP idea

elotar wrote:

Yomyael wrote:

I don't think this is a good idea. This will probably lead to less ousts, as ousting the first prey nets you 1 VP - with the second ouster to get 2 VP and thus winning over you just for killing your prey earlier. Thus you would want your oust to be as late as possible, as long as no one else is close to three ousts. Even making the third oust after one player has gotten two ousts ties you with that player.

Which is exactly the goal, as early player elimination is one of the key problems of VtES.

Early player elimination is not a problem to be fixed in VTES, it is a challenge to overcome. The game allows one to build a deck whose function is to get quick VPs. The game also mitigates these decks by being multiplayer and allowing players to cooperate against the quick ouster. I don’t see a problem.

If you don't know why early elimination is a problem in 2-hour game I don't think there is any common ground for a discussion

It’s not a 2-hour game. Per the rule book. If 2-hour games are a problem for you, don’t play using tournament rules.

VTES is a long-duration game by design. If VTES is too long of a game for you, 2-hour time limit or not, changing how VP’s work will not solve anything other that to make unecessary changes to the rules that likely will have little to no effect on player behavior that casual players will also have to adhere to. No thanks.

Yomyael wrote:

If you have a different point of view on this, then maybe you have some arguments to convince me - instead of just stopping the discussion at the point, that we have no common ground.

No way would I spend time in arguing topics, which was discussed countless times already. There is no point for me in convincing you (or TRR) - you have no influence on design of this game (and I'm too - so you got no point trying to convince me).

We may have some general conversation about merits or flaws of this idea, but as we clearly have different views on basic game design principles I don't think it's be constructive, so will not bother.

So it's just note for somebody interested as I don't remember this idea mentioned earlier.

elotar wrote:

Yomyael wrote:

If you have a different point of view on this, then maybe you have some arguments to convince me - instead of just stopping the discussion at the point, that we have no common ground.

No way would I spend time in arguing topics, which was discussed countless times already. There is no point for me in convincing you (or TRR) - you have no influence on design of this game (and I'm too - so you got no point trying to convince me).

We may have some general conversation about merits or flaws of this idea, but as we clearly have different views on basic game design principles I don't think it's be constructive, so will not bother.

So it's just note for somebody interested as I don't remember this idea mentioned earlier.

What are the merits? You have 3 sentences in your first post saying your idea would make things work differently. You don’t really get into detail. There may be a good idea there, but I have pointed out some flaws. If the idea is to discuss merits and flaws, then have the discussion.

IDK if Richard Garfield and WotC ever intended that weenie swarm cheese be a legit strategy - that would imply some kind of foresight or planning, which we know they didn't have because 1) Magic was never expected to be the huge hit that it was, 2) creatures in MtG were notoriously underpowered despite being the major source of player interactivity, which you could call a design oversight or whatever; 3) the colors in MtG were unbalanced - blue got all the best cards and effects, comparatively; 4) after MtG was a huge hit, WotC scrambled to produce a bunch of card games, including VTES and NetRunner, within a very short time span, making it difficult to believe things were properly play-tested and balanced; 5) VTES, much like MtG, ended up having one 'color' be more powerful than others (Dominate) and the math behind transfers and capacity ended up making weenie votes and weenie bleed decks a thing, the former of which required errata to stop the card cycling pool-burning titled weenies.

Also, maybe the game would benefit if player's were allowed to build-up more. If being the first player to make an oust in less beneficial than being the 2nd or 3rd player, I imagine that players would be likely to bleed less initially. But ousting players is still one of the best way to gain pool, generally. So there would be the incentive to gain more pool, but the unwillingness to open oneself up to being bled. But then players get to build their board-states more, so the result would be maybe an hour-long build up phase, followed by a quickly collapsing board-state (because everyone is built-up and lunges commence.) What we have now is the opposite: a 5-player game, where 1-2 players are KO'ed within 20-30 minutes (or sooner), followed by a 3-4 player hour-and-a-half long game.

My 2 cents.

Thank you, LivesByProxy, to really start a discussion here.

Elotar, if you do not want to discuss with people not developing the game, maybe E-Mail it to BCP instead of just shutting down people trying to think over your idea - even if they are willed to hear your points and not shout at you, and yet in the same sentence saying you would like to discuss merits or flaws of your idea, without even considering the flaws I mentioned.

So I get now, that you seem to have a problem with weenie decks. I think weenie decks are an important part of the game. Decks trying to build up have to face the problem of doing it fast enough - resulting in the question "Can this survive the early game against Weenie Dom/Dem/whatever?" when building decks. Without these kinds of decks - trying to oust fast - I suppose that more decks will be building up resulting in a stale mate - everyone is in the perfect position to defend against anything, but unfortunately nothing is coming, as everyone knows he can't get a lunge through succesful, without allowing someone else to lunge.

But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it would lead to more interesting games. But what I'm sure will happen is that games will take more time.

elotar wrote:

Just got an idea which may (or may not) solve some problems in the game, should write it down to not forget.

Rising number of VP gained for each oust.

So first oust provides 1 VP, second - 2, third -3, last - 4.

So you still will win by ousting 3 people and dying, but all this tricks of sitting still and then grabbing one VP will work a little differently.

Also I think it quite combines with the idea of adding time after each oust.

I fail to see how this improves anything. It will make the first oust even LESS useful than it currently is, therefore nobody would want to be the person to do the first oust, since ousting often means you open your defense for others to oust you. If anything, this would entice people to play that stall game even more.

I am against this.

elotar wrote:

No way would I spend time in arguing topics, which was discussed countless times already. There is no point for me in convincing you (or TRR) - you have no influence on design of this game (and I'm too - so you got no point trying to convince me).

We may have some general conversation about merits or flaws of this idea, but as we clearly have different views on basic game design principles I don't think it's be constructive, so will not bother.

This is a discussion forum. If you're not looking for discussion, I recommend going somewhere else. Also, way to go for implying criticism isn't constructive.