POLL: A Question of Balance

ICL wrote:

Shifting the balance is exactly what CCGs should do.

Why though?

And how? The only way to achieve this is to either ban anything but the recent sets or cards (like Magic does) or by creating increasingly more powerful cards. One requires a monumental change in the structure of the game, so that's out of the question. The only other option is to continually create more powerful cards. I think it's a good thing we don't have the power curve phenomenon in V:TES. We can make Quietus stronger than Dominate and keep on doing so until we've made a full circle, but when we're done we're bleeding for 15 and striking with Strike: Burn opposing vampire.

Xaddam wrote:

ICL wrote:

Shifting the balance is exactly what CCGs should do.

Why though?

And how? The only way to achieve this is to either ban anything but the recent sets or cards (like Magic does) or by creating increasingly more powerful cards. One requires a monumental change in the structure of the game, so that's out of the question. The only other option is to continually create more powerful cards. I think it's a good thing we don't have the power curve phenomenon in V:TES. We can make Quietus stronger than Dominate and keep on doing so until we've made a full circle, but when we're done we're bleeding for 15 and striking with Strike: Burn opposing vampire.

It's not really possible without set rotation, huge errata or fresh start. But i would enjoy that is actually good at something, maybe not as good as dominate, but actually worth considering.

Lech wrote:

It's not really possible without set rotation, huge errata or fresh start. But i would enjoy that is actually good at something, maybe not as good as dominate, but actually worth considering.

I agree, a few other disciplines up there would be fun. But it's important to think about the big picture. We can't just "make it so" and then 'wham!' we have an instantly more fun game. In my opinion the risk of introducing more powerful cards and the risk decreasing the amount of competitive decks does not outweigh the minimal and short-lived fun of having Quietus on top for a year.

Also, I would find important to have a metagame where every deck have a nemesis that counter him hard time without the counter-strategy being too narrow. That also is pretty difficult to do but may be worth it.

ICL wrote:

Funny. Shifting the balance is exactly what CCGs should do. Of course, at any given time, there's no perfect balance between strategies. What should happen, regularly, is that what's best and what's worst should change.

V:TES is incredibly bad about this relative to other CCGs. There has never been a time when Dominate was not at the top of the power curve. There has never been a time when Quietus was an elite discipline. Prince/Justicar, Dominate + stealth, Dementation + stealth, Auspex bounce, Dominate bounce, pulling blood off of vampires with masters, Presence vote - lots of things have never been overshadowed.

Actually, I see this as a major strength VTES has over other CCG's.

Most CCG's can only do this through set rotation and/or rapidly increasing power creep. That also results in players constantly needing to buy lots of the latest set (either because older cards are rotated out, or the power curve has reached the point where all the older cards pale in comparison to the souped up newer cards). With VTES, you don't need constant outlays of money for the newest set - old cards can still be extremely competitive. It's also more conducive to older players who get back into the game and those with older collections but who haven't been as up-to-date.

VTES has significantly more balance and stability, which I see as good. Considering the wasteland of failed CCG's, it seems that the rapid power curve approach just isn't sustainable for the majority of CCG's.

Also, with other CCG's (MtG, L5R), the environment is often clearly dominated by particular decks/archetypes, so in most situations, there is a very dominant deck type (which lots of people end up playing). That often persists until the next expansion puts someone else on top.

In VTES, you do have general overall stability, but that is compensated by a constantly shifting metagame. You don't need to wait for a new expansion, for a "top" deck to suddenly drop because everyone has adapted to it by choosing different deck types (or playing with anti- cards). I think that the shifting metagame does a good job at keeping things relatively fresh.

Xaddam wrote:

ICL wrote:

Shifting the balance is exactly what CCGs should do.

Why though?

And how? The only way to achieve this is to either ban anything but the recent sets or cards (like Magic does) or by creating increasingly more powerful cards. One requires a monumental change in the structure of the game, so that's out of the question. The only other option is to continually create more powerful cards. I think it's a good thing we don't have the power curve phenomenon in V:TES. We can make Quietus stronger than Dominate and keep on doing so until we've made a full circle, but when we're done we're bleeding for 15 and striking with Strike: Burn opposing vampire.

Why? Because of boredom. The people who currently play the game aren't bored with it. But, how many people who don't play it anymore got tired of how repetitive it is?

I've been saying recently that Dominate is oppressive. Not because you have to play it. Not because it's boring to play or play against. But, because deck construction is so much less interesting when you can add Dominate and make so many decks better.

As for major shifts in power, sure, that's a bit of a problem to manage when you never retire cards. I would be happy to dispense with tons of cards, but others are not, but then, others seem to find the exceedingly slow evolution of the game more desirable than I.

It is entirely possible to make something better without making everything better. Animalism is very, very strong these days. Even before Deep Song, it rose to much greater heights. Much of its strength is off of a card printed in Jyhad and one printed in Sabbat. What has happened is a tipping point.

And, yes some metagame changes have occurred. Though, I don't remotely agree with Eric about a constantly shifting metagame. Even without comparing to other CCGs, I don't find a great need to change strategies from ones available a decade ago to remain competitive, let alone needing to adapt from year to year.

I distinguish CCGs from boardgames in a number of key ways. Obviously, CCGs allow you to bring your personality and interests into a game in a way that boardgames don't. But, that matters much less when the evolution of the competitive card pool is slow. Boardgames are a limited universe of possibilities, where CCGs are for all intents and purposes infinite in possibilities. In theory. In practice, not so much. Yet, I'd rather have more (competitive) options rather than less.

I will say, as I always say, that far more strategies and cards are viable in V:TES then in other CCGs. I'd lean towards maybe a third of the card pool for an "average CCG" is actually playable besides as a joke. So, I understand that we don't feel the staleness one might feel if another CCG saw so little change in power levels. On the other hand, that the inequality in power that has existed since Jyhad doesn't break the game also suggests that creating new, powerful cards in other areas won't likely break the game either.

What is the point of new cards? If not to change the environment, then why bother at all? Why not settle in as more of a boardgame with lots of possibilities? Maybe I just like the CCG model where you do need to keep up or fall behind. On the other hand, I'm not that bothered by thinking of V:TES as more like a boardgame with thousands of relevant components, which is why I don't feel any need for new cards.

Anyway, there's what should have happened long ago, what could happen now, what we prefer to see. I don't care that much about a major shift in what cards people play at this point. But, I'm also not terribly worried about productive shifts in power from new cards, either. No, what would worry me is attempting to rebalance the game and only ending up helping things that are already strong, which is a common problem. Well, whatever, it's all theoretical at this point. An advantage of sets like the new set is that it's easy to retract the set or make changes should a problem arise.