compress Change in the crypt contest rule

02 Dec 2019 18:33 #98098 by skimflux
I agree that the current contesting rule is 'less than ideal' in a competitive environment.

There was a time (probably before Sabbat Wars was released) when it was usefull in keeping everyone from playing Arika decks, but we have since gone way past the point where it serves any balance purpose whatsoever, and story/theme considerations can be addressed in many ways, including any one of the alternatives proposed in this thread.

So I don't see the '3 Unnamed at every table' as a good argument - if that becomes an issue it just means that The Unnamed is currently unbalanced, with or without constesting.

I would suggest the following:
- When two minions contest, they are both out of game.
- At the beggining of each turn, each of the contesting players can pay 1 pool to bring his copy into play if no other copies are in play (following the regular impulse rules). At the end of the turn, any copy in play is 'flipped back' out of play.
- When a Methuselah chooses not to pay on his own turn his contest is yelded and removed from the game.

This way the default is still that the minions are out of game, but players can use them during their own turn or for defense during other turns, at a cost.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
03 Dec 2019 10:24 #98115 by Sambomb
With the recent Nerf at Pentex, I don't think this would be good for the meta, because star vampires will rise even more.
If you have only 1 vampire in you deck, you already know that a contest can happen and break your game.
There are a lot of chances to break someone's game, if you have only one vampire and take a Sensory Deprivation before you can act for example, this would break you game.
Maybe we can change the rule to enable a quicker "fallback" something like: When contesting a vampire with someone else, you can remove it from the game to gain the pool in it and half (round up) the pool in transfers this turn.

Or a master out of turn:
When someone contest with you, remove the contest from the game and no cost is paid.

Archbishop of Itaocara
Prince ID #510

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
03 Dec 2019 13:52 #98120 by Malachy

skimflux wrote: So I don't see the '3 Unnamed at every table' as a good argument - if that becomes an issue it just means that The Unnamed is currently unbalanced, with or without constesting.


There will always be one or two strongest vamps, archetypes, comboes, etc... This does NOT mean they are unbalanced, overpowered, nor that they need nerfs. I wholeheartedly disagree with your reasoning, because then another strongest vamp will emerge, then that gets stomped, then another, and so on... I also must say I agree with you on that we wouldn't see 3 Unnamed every table... we would see 3 Stanislava more likely :lol:

Some vamps got out of hand recently, namely Nana Buruku, Aksinya, Stanislava. I suspect one of the main reasons for competitive players avoid using these vamps is the contesting rule we have right now.

NC of Hungary

///
The following user(s) said Thank You: Kraus

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
03 Dec 2019 19:21 #98126 by skimflux

Malachy wrote:

skimflux wrote: So I don't see the '3 Unnamed at every table' as a good argument - if that becomes an issue it just means that The Unnamed is currently unbalanced, with or without constesting.


There will always be one or two strongest vamps, archetypes, comboes, etc... This does NOT mean they are unbalanced, overpowered, nor that they need nerfs.


I would agree, but there is a big gap between 'one or two strongest vamps' and 'so strong that 60% of decks in every table want to use it'. If they are so much stronger than everything else that nearly everybody chooses to play with that deck, then yes, that means they are unbalanced/overpowered/etc.

It's poor game design to allow for one strategy to dominate (pun not intended) over everything else, and frankly that is one of the good things that VtES has had going for it - there are many different ways to play it, and no single deck can win everytime.

I wholeheartedly disagree with your reasoning, because then another strongest vamp will emerge, then that gets stomped, then another, and so on... I also must say I agree with you on that we wouldn't see 3 Unnamed every table... we would see 3 Stanislava more likely :lol:


Balancing does not have to be done through stomps, nerfs, or bans anyway - overpowered mechanics can be balanced with boosts or new mechanics.

For example: against The Unnamed I've found that reducing bleeds is quite effective, even more than deflections - it prevents them playing Enkil Clog, eliminates their main pool gain, and provokes handjam. With any aggressive predator the deck then stalls and dies fairly quickly. So, if the contesting rule is changed and every table starts featuring 1 or more Unnamed decks, BCP can restore balance by boosting the 'reduce bleed' mechanics.

If Stanislava were to ever become that common you could expect to see Fear of Mehket replace the now useless Pentex(TM) Subversion slots in every tournament deck.

Some vamps got out of hand recently, namely Nana Buruku, Aksinya, Stanislava. I suspect one of the main reasons for competitive players avoid using these vamps is the contesting rule we have right now.


I doubt it - there are plenty of silver bullets in VtES, if any vampire were that popular currently you would be seeing those silver bullets being played much more often by those same competitive players.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
03 Dec 2019 20:03 #98127 by beslin igor

skimflux wrote: I would agree, but there is a big gap between 'one or two strongest vamps' and 'so strong that 60% of decks in every table want to use it'. If they are so much stronger than everything else that nearly everybody chooses to play with that deck, then yes, that means they are unbalanced/overpowered/etc.


So skimflux you think how is 'one or two strongest vamps' and 'so strong that 60% of decks in every table want to use it'.
Did you play VTES with much diferent people or with 5-6 players who always play high cap vampires?
I know some players who like to play small cap or weenie,and they base strategi on big number vampires,and these weenie easy kill you unbalanced/overpowered vampires(I mean player who play it) So play one unbalanced/overpowered vampire not mean GW

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
03 Dec 2019 23:53 #98130 by Timo

skimflux wrote: I would suggest the following:
- When two minions contest, they are both out of game.
- At the beggining of each turn, each of the contesting players can pay 1 pool to bring his copy into play if no other copies are in play (following the regular impulse rules). At the end of the turn, any copy in play is 'flipped back' out of play.
- When a Methuselah chooses not to pay on his own turn his contest is yelded and removed from the game.

This way the default is still that the minions are out of game, but players can use them during their own turn or for defense during other turns, at a cost.


And so the 3 afore-mentioned The Unamed players can choose not to have a The Unamed on the table during the turn of the 2 other players playing rush combat :D

This seems perfect !
The following user(s) said Thank You: Whisker

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
Moderators: AnkhaKraus
Time to create page: 0.145 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum