VtES history

TwoRazorReign wrote:

I mean, stopping other players from doing things is part of the core game mechanics (blocking, intercept, torpor, etc).

That is why rush and wall spam are at the very bottom of my list. They are part of the core game, and because of that, the game comes with counters to both. They force you to play around them, but playing around them is still playing.

That being said, the core of the game is to oust one's prey, and making it too easy to build decks that forget to have an ousting strategy can be considered as a flaw in game design. Just because blocking is part of the game does not mean that the game should make it easy to build and play decks that nothing but blocking. One possible example: what if instead of disciplineless wakes, we had a card that untaps a minion in the influence phase (like metro underground, but as a free transient minion card?) The effect would be similar for the 90% decks that use wakes for defense and will very rarely use more than one per turn, if only because of card flow, but it would make it more difficult to build decks that just sit there and block everything around them in two ways:
1) that new wake would allow to take an action and reaction with the same minion, but not 2 reactions. That is encouraging players to be more active.
2) that new wake would be playable only once per turn per minion, so it would take more work for one methuselah to find enough minions to block his 2 neighbours.

TwoRazorReign wrote:

I mean, stopping other players from doing things is part of the core game mechanics (blocking, intercept, torpor, etc).

We should separate "preventing players from doing anything", from "preventing players from ATTEMPTING to do anything". Getting blocked, having combat etc is not the issue as I see it. If players have no minions they cannot even attempt anything.

edit: How hard is it to see difference between
"I try to do X. I block. I play stealth, I play intercept. We have combat. Boom boom."

From

"I mind rape your minion. Block fail. I do baltimore purge".
One type of play can be fun for beginners, other is not. Do the math. Interaction is the key.

(1): That "gentelman's agreement" Is not fun for the player whose deck is built around the concept of diablerizing vampires. (2): If the player has such a deck, what's stopping that player from bringing it to a game and breaking that agreement? That you'll tsk tsk them?

If you try to intentionally misinterpret my words, that's not very constructive. I was pointing out things that in my opinion will probably cause new players walk away from the game. Do with this information what you will.

Talking about "what shall you do if someone does not follow a gentlemans agreement" is entirely irrelevant to the topic. I was simply pointing out that having such an agreement in the first place might be useful.

You can continue playing the way you have always played. Its entirely your choice. Be prepared that player numbers will continue to shrink. Attacking me here in the forum will change nothing.

elotar wrote:

TwoRazorReign wrote:

[stopping other players from doing things is part of the core game mechanics (blocking, intercept, torpor, etc).

It's actually a serious problem and I not thing it is an unsolvable one.

No, it's pretty much unsolvable. The way you propose to solve it is to ban half the cards in the game and excise things from the rulebook. While an overhaul like this may be a good idea, right now it's a bad idea because the powers that be have expressed no interest in doing an overhaul. So, with the game in the state it is now (ie, not officially active, but pretty much staying as is if it becomes active), all you're doing is making people's old Jyhad collections and people's relatively inexpensive Jyhad ebay purchases unusable. As the game stands now, you're creating a barrier to entry, not solving a problem.

Non-existant user wrote:

That being said, the core of the game is to oust one's prey, and making it too easy to build decks that forget to have an ousting strategy can be considered as a flaw in game design.

The real flaw is the CCG model VTES is based on. You remove the CCG basis, and what you are calling a flaw in game design above disappears.

Bloodartist wrote:

edit: How hard is it to see difference between
"I try to do X. I block. I play stealth, I play intercept. We have combat. Boom boom."

From

"I mind rape your minion. Block fail. I do baltimore purge".
One type of play can be fun for beginners, other is not. Do the math. Interaction is the key.

Yeah, but wouldn't it be fun for the beginner if they're the ones doing the Mind Rape/Block Fail/Baltimore Purge thing?

If you try to intentionally misinterpret my words, that's not very constructive.

I don't think I was misinterpreting what you were saying. I was expressing my opinion that the gentelman's agreements you proposed won't work well.

I was pointing out things that in my opinion will probably cause new players walk away from the game. Do with this information what you will.

Okay. I will take your opinion, disagree with it, and give my opinion. This is what I am doing with the information in your post.

Talking about "what shall you do if someone does not follow a gentlemans agreement" is entirely irrelevant to the topic. I was simply pointing out that having such an agreement in the first place might be useful.

See, it is relevant in the context of my reply, where I was giving my opinion that gentelman's agreements are not useful.

You can continue playing the way you have always played. Its entirely your choice.

Uh, okay? I will do that. Not sure what this means or why you are saying it.

Be prepared that player numbers will continue to shrink. Attacking me here in the forum will change nothing.

I mean, I realize I was disagreeing with your points in kind of a sarcastic way. But I don't attack strangers on the internet, and especially not over a stupid card game about vampires. I assure you my responses were not meant in an aggressive way at all.

TwoRazorReign wrote:

No, it's pretty much unsolvable... As the game stands now...

You have to understand the problem to find a solution.

Bannings looks better for me, but maybe we can go with some errata, like, for example, making pentex cost 1 pool but only disallow blocks.

Maybe levels of play are possible - like divide tournament scene into casual with allowed proxies and limited cardpool and unlimited without proxies at national/GP/continental champs.

Making changes to basic rules, like removing diablerie or implementing "5 transfers" are also "collection independent".

Storylines, actually, was a good idea (badly implemented, thou) - to make some motivation for the non-hardcore players to participate.

So we can try different things.

But we are actually not doing and even discussing anything from the list.