VtES history

elotar wrote:

You have to understand the problem to find a solution.

Unless you are making up a problem out of thing air, by incorrect correlation.

elotar wrote:

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.

So your solution to reducing the barrier to entry, which in your opinion is complexity, is to add mroe complexity. You are not a very consistent person, are you?

elotar wrote:

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

Sure, because destroying multiple deck archetypes that people spent years collecting for makes no collection impact. Again, do you think about the game wider than just YOUR play group and YOUR meta environment? Because going on the strength of the majority of your posts i am going to guess not.[/quote]

elotar wrote:

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

By this are you once again referring to your widely disputed, generally ridiculed plan to "overhaul" vtes?

elotar wrote:

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.

I suggest that you try all these things you propose with your playgroup for a year and see what happens.

Will the games be more enjoyable or not?
Will the playgrup grow?
Will it diminish?

I estimate what you just end up is kneecapping yourself and ending up with fractured playgroup with fewer active players. But, hey, better than happen to Moscow players than the whole worldwide VTES community...

Blooded wrote:

Sure, because destroying multiple deck archetypes that people spent years collecting for makes no collection impact. Again, do you think about the game wider than just YOUR play group and YOUR meta environment? Because going on the strength of the majority of your posts i am going to guess not.

Other card games (Magic in particular) do this regularly with success, because making certain deck types poor tournament choices via bannings makes OTHER deck types good choices. Decks that used to receive little to no play time because the other decks were too dominant.

It keeps things dynamic. Very often, if you leave a ccg format untouched for too long a time, certain decktypes will float to the top and be considered "best". If things remain like this, gameplay becomes boring and predictable. Shaking things with bannings and unbannings, especially when coupled with new card releases, will make players uncertain what is the "best deck" in this new environment. It makes things and deckbuilding new, exciting and fun again.

Keep in mind that we can always UNBAN cards also. Its not a one-way street.

Magic the gathering modern format (which does not rotate) does bannings and unbannings in this vein once or twice a year. It keeps the format interesting.

I have had bannings destroy my decktypes in magic many times. I will play another deck. Problem solved.

ps. Let it be said that I don't agree with some (many?) rules change suggestions given here, unless I specifically say so.

pps. VTES is stagnant. That you could still be playing the same deck as in '95 with success is a clear indicator of it.

TwoRazorReign wrote:

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

These things are subjective. Some people like making other people miserable. I've noticed this to be quite common in VTES, possibly due to the many ways you can accomplish it. I don't belong in this group (admittedly, I've done this unintentionally a lot lately with combat decks; mainly because its often the only useful defense. Destroying someones game).

Since these cards and strategies divide the playerbase, its pretty simple logic to deduce that these things are bad for the game if they are common enough to make some players stop playing. Purpose of game design is to make the game enjoyable for EVERYONE.

I've yet to meet a player who said "I could play no cards in this game. I had fun".

ps. VTES card design has been supporting such playstyles a lot during its whole existence. I don't ask cards to be errataed or rules changed to make these things not possible. I only ask that we do not enforce this design in future cards (cards that destroy someones game with little to no counterplay). I hope I make myself clear enough.

pps. We had a baltimore purge deck in our game this week. He got himself backousted due to it.

pps. VTES is stagnant. That you could still be playing the same deck as in '95 with success is a clear indicator of it.

Is it, though?

When looking at the top 20-40 deck lists in TWDA we don't see too many decks resembling a pure Dominate + Obfuscate archetype. Not even pure midcap Stealth Bleeds that much.

I'd say, that S&B is strong, as it always has been and always will be. It is, however, excellent only in expert hands. Otherwise it's a great introductory archetype into the game, something simple and powerful enough to give newbies a fighting chance.

I thought that things like Red burn decks have always been, and always will be, a thing in MTG (as you brought it up). Not that I know almost anything about MTG, just tossing that there. Point is: archetypes.

It's a good introductory deck, and S&B is powerful enough to hold it's own as an archetype. Malk-95 isn't the best deck to support this archetype. It's a deck within the archetype.

I can't call the game stale because of it.

And, partly, that 'staleness' (that decks retain their validity through years), is the power of the game.

Kraus wrote:

I can't call the game stale because of it.

And, partly, that 'staleness' (that decks remain their validity through years), is the power of the game.

HEAR HEAR!