file Would it hurt VTES to lose Contesting Titles??

×

Poll: Removing Contesting Titles

Total number of voters: 0
Only registered users can participate to this poll
15 Oct 2015 21:23 #73686 by holland227
The contesting of titles is a strong part of the game. It really shows the Struggle for power in a city. Changing it would effect the game. We had two title contests last playsession with my group. Added some tension on the table because they were cross table allies and it really dampered their decks because they were both voting. (Funny thing it was Anson and Casino Reeds!)

Contesting vampires should stay as it is. If you draw a table where you and someone else is playing the same thing then that is what happens. With so many vampires and deck types out there, there is so much to choose from but there is contesting. Otherwise everyone would play 12 Arikas or 12 Nergals without having to Soul Gem them.

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

More
04 Nov 2015 08:16 #74084 by Rémi
Dear all,

I would say the "Contesting ruls" make VTES a bit different from most of other games. It is a multiplayer game where you have to look at other players' board. If you want to a play a unique card, then you'll work on it by playing more copies in order to put it on the table before other players, negociate with other players to explain that you have to control it and they do not.

I am definitaly against thise change.

Regards,
Rémi.

I am Rémi Cavaillé (), Barcelona (SPAIN). I was the Prince of Lyon (FRANCE) in 2003 :)

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

More
05 Nov 2015 00:42 #74095 by Boris The Blade

Ankha wrote: Vampires with contesting titles were designed with that concept in mind. Casino Reeds and Fee Stake: Seattle were designed after Anson, and I'm pretty sure the title contest was voluntary to make Anson less reliable.

The data you quote show the exact opposite of your point. Praxis: Seattle is one of the 9 printed in Jyhad. One for each city with a printed Prince, no more, no less. And if you look at those princes:
-Rake: 4 contests.
-Gilbert Duane: 4 contests.
-Sir Walter Nash: 5 contests.
-Tatiana Romanov: 3 contests.
-Timothy Crowley: 1 contest.
-Anson: 1 contest.
-Emerson Bridges: 4 contests.
-Selma the Reupgnant: 1 contest.
-Cardano: 1 contest.

Anson is actually in the least contested batch. Good luck finding any correlation between in-game power and the number of contests.

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

More
05 Nov 2015 11:47 #74102 by jamesatzephyr

Boris The Blade wrote: The data you quote show the exact opposite of your point. Praxis: Seattle is one of the 9 printed in Jyhad. One for each city with a printed Prince, no more, no less. And if you look at those princes:
-Rake: 4 contests.
-Gilbert Duane: 4 contests.
-Sir Walter Nash: 5 contests.
-Tatiana Romanov: 3 contests.
-Timothy Crowley: 1 contest.
-Anson: 1 contest.
-Emerson Bridges: 4 contests.
-Selma the Reupgnant: 1 contest.
-Cardano: 1 contest.

Anson is actually in the least contested batch. Good luck finding any correlation between in-game power and the number of contests.


If it was me with a magic wand, I'd quite like it to work in that way, even if it doesn't.

I'd have preferred to keep the number of cities fairly small, some with lots of vampires claiming the city in different clans, groups and sects, and others less so. Perhaps one city is only available to Archbishops and Barons, while another has five Princes, four Archbishops and two Barons claiming it. And when Bobby the Brujah (Prince of Bowling Green) turns out to be pretty darned good, there's the opportunity to print Larry the Lasombra (Archbishop of Bowling Green) and Rachel the Ravnos (if untitled and anrch, she can call a referendum to become the Baron of Bowling Green) to take the shine off a bit. That sort of thing.

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

More
05 Nov 2015 12:22 #74103 by Boris The Blade
There is a fundamental problem with using contest as a balancing mechanism: the new vampires need to be on the upper side of the power curve as well or they will not see play. All parties lose in a contest, so all things considered equal you do not want to set yourself up for high contest probabilities with a popular vampire. Taking the Anson example again: when you invest 9 pool into Casino Reeds, you need his title to get the value back, but you cannot count on it due to the popularity of Anson. So you play Gr 1-2 instead.

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

More
06 Nov 2015 11:59 - 06 Nov 2015 12:00 #74117 by jamesatzephyr

Boris The Blade wrote: There is a fundamental problem with using contest as a balancing mechanism: the new vampires need to be on the upper side of the power curve as well or they will not see play. All parties lose in a contest, so all things considered equal you do not want to set yourself up for high contest probabilities with a popular vampire. Taking the Anson example again: when you invest 9 pool into Casino Reeds, you need his title to get the value back, but you cannot count on it due to the popularity of Anson. So you play Gr 1-2 instead.


There are swings and roundabouts here. If you know you face a world in which Stevie the Setite (Archbishop of South Bend) is a very popular and very good vampire, and you know that he turns up all the times in your local games and tournaments, it might well be the case that you view the ability to use Gabriel the Gangrel (Prince of South Bend) to unsettle my deck as a positive boon. Sometimes you get a vampire with 2 votes, and sometimes you get to screw with my ability to play Second Tradition. With dozens of contestible cities, the chances of you hitting one that's useful to you is pretty small - but with a smaller pool, this might be a very significant strategic choice you're making.

Additionally, in the magic wand parallel universe, such titles are inherently less stable - you wouldn't be able to build a deck around them in quite the same way as you could now, because there's a greater likelihood of you contesting the title. Such titles would probably be, in naive design points terms, worth a little less than they are now.

There are other ways you can ameliorate the issue, though. For example:

- the new vampire(s) might be a vampire who's desirable for other reasons than just power. For example, if your new Archbishop of South Bend is Ash the Ahrimane and there are only 6 Ahrimane you can play in that group, Ash might well feature in Ahrimane decks even if her title is considered an annoyance. Doesn't have to be an actual bloodline - if you wanted to make a good clutch of Warrior Setites (actual Setites, but with good Potence and combat capabilities), there might only be a few of those, so leaving out Frankie the Follower of Set would hurt your crypt too.

- the title doesn't have to be perfect. The Maxwell option (can become the City Title of City by doing a thing) could make a title cheaper in design terms. Or a title that's not as good: Terry the Tremere is Prince of South Bend, but cards requiring a Prince cost Terry an additional blood to play; Andy the Assamite is Baron of South Bend, but his title is worth two fewer votes - so he can play Fifth Tradition, but doesn't give you standing votes
Last edit: 06 Nov 2015 12:00 by jamesatzephyr.

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

More
Moderators: AnkhaKraus
Time to create page: 0.207 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum