Bleed vs Burn

self wrote:

however, at the same time there is a significant portion of the player base that seemingly doesn't want to fix the stuff that doesnt work well, or at all.

That is a manipulative statement - first during last couple decades, while the game was in a "stasis", you've removed from player base everybody, who is not deeply financially or/and emotionally invested into the game in it's present state , then you are saying that "majority of the player base do not want change".

It's, actually, are two manipulations in one post, because you are implying fallacy "best for the game is a hard reboot -> we are not going to do it -> game should stay as is"

Yea, after players that want change have left we say that change is not wanted. Let's not pretend that the current playerbase is robust and that change may not add more players than are lost.

As a rather new player, having played about 2 years now, I don't really see any huge problems in the game that would need a complete reboot to fix. Only real issue I see, is the inconsistency in some rules interactions and wording of cards that allow these inconsistencies, but these are easily fixable with new and updated card text. That is something that is being done in multiple games all the time. Like, look at Magic for example. There has been multiple major rules overhauls in some pretty relevant parts of the game, and no reboot needed. Most of the problems with VTES now are completely fixable in similar ways.

Considering the changes to the cards etc, I cant really say anything, as I have only experience one major change that is the coming change to Pentex, and if you ask me, I don't really care, as its kind of a minor change in the end. Other than that, all the new cards brought to the game by BCP have been great, the products are excellent and the direction seems healthy and well thought out. I wouldn't worry about them ruining the game as from what I understand the people making the changes are well educated, smart and have the understanding of the game to make the changes.

Kushiel wrote:

You say "If there were differences between the terms "bleed", "burn", and "lose" (pool)..."
What specific differences would you want to see? Currently, the only difference between them is that there are cards that key to "bleed" but not "burn," such as action modifiers and reactions that modify the amount or target of bleeds. Are you hoping for cards that have similar bounce/reduce/increase effects specifically for cards that cause pool to burn[/b], rather than bleeds?

Yes, you are understanding me here. Because every bleed results in "burning pool" which is also a "loss of pool", printing an effect that keys off / triggers / looks for instances of pool burning / etc. requires some extra wording, usually some kind of "only usable during a non-bleed action" (or similar) clause. Does that make sense?

Ke. wrote:

This entire thread is odd. There's already a distinct difference between bleed and burn. For example we could create a card like this:

Un-Archonabe.
Costs 1 blood
[dai] Bleed with +2 bleed.
[DAI] Bleed with +2 bleed, if this bleed is successful the target burns one additional pool.

The bleed is still for 3, the target looses 4 pool and you can't be archon'd — seems like the distinction is already there.

But you could not have a card say, "Whenever a minion burns 3 or more pool from your prey, that minion gains 1 blood." without also adding something about "from a non-bleed action", because any bleed of 3 or more "burns" pool.

mewcat wrote:

I think he is pointing out potential areas for development. Not that burn pool isn't a thing but that it a scarcely used.

Yes, this is it exactly.

elotar wrote:

That is a manipulative statement - first during last couple decades, while the game was in a "stasis", you've removed from player base everybody, who is not deeply financially or/and emotionally invested into the game in it's present state , then you are saying that "majority of the player base do not want change".

That's an interesting and insightful observation. It seems obvious, yet I didn't see it until you pointed it out.

selfbiased wrote:

however, at the same time there is a significant portion of the player base that seemingly doesn't want to fix the stuff that doesnt work well, or at all.

This is what I don't understand. BC changed something that was likely to upset many players, a very strong and popular card, and yet so much card board exists that no one uses in their decks due to it being unplayable, is left untouched? I look at my box full of Aura of Invincibility and think: "This could have been great if it was / and had a stronger effect."

Khormag wrote:

Other than that, all the new cards brought to the game by BCP have been great, the products are excellent and the direction seems healthy and well thought out. I wouldn't worry about them ruining the game as from what I understand the people making the changes are well educated, smart and have the understanding of the game to make the changes.

I agree with this, mostly. Their new card designs are mostly in the right spot. They have some hits, but also misses. I don't like the decision to errata certain iconic cards unless they were also going to errata the tons of wallpaper that exists, and I would prefer they do the latter rather than the former. And I find it strange they they are so bold - they'll change iconic cards like Pentex - yet almost timid when it comes to pushing the power-level of their new cards.

I think the game going forward would prosper if potential areas were explored, developed, etc. The idea of making burn (pool) more distinct from bleed is on par with developing (really emphasizing and exploring the mechanical differences between) the Camarilla and Sabbat.

elotar wrote:

self wrote:

however, at the same time there is a significant portion of the player base that seemingly doesn't want to fix the stuff that doesnt work well, or at all.

That is a manipulative statement - first during last couple decades, while the game was in a "stasis", you've removed from player base everybody, who is not deeply financially or/and emotionally invested into the game in it's present state , then you are saying that "majority of the player base do not want change".

my intent was to show that there are several camps of thought with regard to the health of the game overall, and none of these different groups want the same thing, though there is some overlap in the big picture. What one group wants and thinks is 'best' for the overall health of the game, other groups are opposed to it (and for them would be THE DEATH OF THE GAME).

Just look at all of the recent salt and vitriol that was tossed around before and after the Pentex Subversion errata. The most recent errata have shown how divided the community at large is over... well, everything. Even you and I, Elotar, it feels like we agree on the big picture stuff and the broad strokes when it comes to Vtes. However, when it comes down the fine details on how to fix whatever detail we're looking at, we end up on disagreeing. it's that division and how complex it is was what I was referring to.

It's, actually, are two manipulations in one post, because you are implying fallacy "best for the game is a hard reboot -> we are not going to do it -> game should stay as is"

you say 'manipulation,' but i'm not trying to mislead anyone, but I think you might be conflating the health of the game as its own entity, and the health of the community comprised of the people who play the game. The two are related and certainily have a deep effect on each other. Ideally a healthy game environment for Vtes would be one where a player could use a variety of different tools to create a deck archetype to suit their playstyle, and no one set of tools or archetype has a clear best-in-slot dominance in the meta. A healthy game environment makes for happy players, who will want to play the game and buy new product.

I feel that Vtes's game environment is stable, but has some changes that could be made to make the game environment better. This is the "rock solid core of the game and crappy illogical mechanics, rulings and other enelegant stuff, which are built on top of it." point that you make, and I agree with you 100%. I personally feel that a hard reset is the best option to ensure the health of the game environment, despite it being a very minority opinion within the community.

Reading threads here on the forum and in the facebook groups has shown me that many players in the community would be extremely upset if a hard reset were implemented. some worry about the value of their collections, others would see it as a cynical cash grab, others would shrug and continue playing the old game instead of the new one, some would ragequit the game, and the rest would presumably follow into the new game.

But in the big picture, is it worth it to potentially harm the community so significantly with such sweeping changes? In the end, I personally come to the conclusion that it is not, despite my feelings that there are changes that need to happen.

LivesByProxy wrote:

selfbiased wrote:

however, at the same time there is a significant portion of the player base that seemingly doesn't want to fix the stuff that doesnt work well, or at all.

This is what I don't understand. BC changed something that was likely to upset many players, a very strong and popular card, and yet so much card board exists that no one uses in their decks due to it being unplayable, is left untouched? I look at my box full of Aura of Invincibility and think: "This could have been great if it was / and had a stronger effect."

The common refrain I've heard regarding issuing errata to old wallpaper cards, is that even if they errata the card, the old version of the card still exists and would confuse people or otherwise cause problems somehow. At least, that's what I see people claim.

It seems weird to me that people to feel so strongly about cards that claim are junk. Can't errata them because that would be confusing! Why bother banning them or eliminating them from the card pool when nobody uses them? I don't have an answer to this. And honestly, I'm pretty far afield from the topic so I'll stop here before getting a stern look from Kraus.

Modedit\\ Moderation is sad for the missed Iron Glare reference.

Old versions of the cards already given an errata have existed for years on end and I do not remember people complaining much about them.

Say, Majesty anybody?


On a similar note:
Copies of banned cards still exist. Ain't that problematic?