General Proclaimation: Ban/Errata/Proxy This!

Suoli wrote:

While I agree that any changes should be based on a good reason I feel that LSJ would not look for ironclad proof or extreme certainty before making a decision. The matter of game balance is too subjective. There's just always going to be some room for doubt. The question is do we accept that there will never be absolute certainty or do we never change anything at all, even if it would intuitively seem like a clear case.

Precisely, which is why in the absence of a single unifying voice MORE thought needs to go in, not less. Rules changes and new sets were playtested before release, we don't really have that luxury.

Shockwave, I think you are being a tad too emotional here.

I am of the opinion that constant evolution is necessary to keep a complex game healthy. No innovation at all leads to stagnation and a slow death, as it is in the nature of people nowadays to get bored easily.

However, having a solid debate about the merits or flaws of proposed changes, whatever they are, is nothing to be afraid of.

We can discuss forever, decisions are made by the powers that be, and those are neither you nor I.

LSJ did a fine job maintaining the rules-integrity for this game all this time. IMO, there have been a few bad calls regarding contents of sets and implementation of groups - but that is maybe just me being burned by AH and DS and their less then satisfactory bunch of 10 vamps in each clan to build the crypts from...
As I understand it LSJ is devoting a lot less time to his role as rules-monger now. It's convenient for him to have a VTES forum on BGG, too, as he is already quite involved there.
The VEKN would need him here on VEKN.NET, but that is atm wishful thinking.
Maybe it's time to consider a successor?

WW was fine before CCP took them over. I remember Steve Wieck being an enthusiastic supporter of VTES and there were semi-regular chats going on, and the Players' Guide stems from that time, too.
The lack of support from CCP was aggravating (no pun intended).

We may find in the future that we have to adapt to new situations. Already supply of HttB and KoT is scarce at best (inexistent for starters), and that was the best source to obtain cards like Deflection and Villein (and other power rares, uncommons and commons). The power level in those last sets increased noticably and the print size decreased as well. Not a good situation. It will take some time to see the repercussions of those facts fully in the tournament scene, but that will come for sure.

The VEKN is now the steering council for VTES as they are the players' organisation. It would be wise, if they explored all possible avenues, even if some turn out to be unfeasible or detrimental to the game in the end.

Once VTES is taken up again by another or the same company again, things might look different, but for the time being, the ideas tossed around should be explored and implemented where doable and needed, even if only for a limited time period (i.e. when the new company takes over).

Hunamity wouldn't be where it is now, if things had never been changed and re-examined, no? B)

Amenophobis wrote:

Shockwave, I think you are being a tad too emotional here.

I'm sure that when he wants an unsubstantiated inferral of his mental state from text, you'll be the first one he comes to.

Amenophobis wrote:

I am of the opinion that constant evolution is necessary to keep a complex game healthy. No innovation at all leads to stagnation and a slow death, as it is in the nature of people nowadays to get bored easily.

Thank goodness for all the recent revisions to chess/poker/mancala/patience/monopoly/go etc.

Amenophobis wrote:

However, having a solid debate about the merits or flaws of proposed changes, whatever they are, is nothing to be afraid of.

Agreed. Where solid debate is point and counter point. Not wailing that the game is unplayable because card A is both ZOMG OVERPOWARED and so rare as to be unobtainable (NB I'm not saying you've done this)

Amenophobis wrote:

We can discuss forever, decisions are made by the powers that be, and those are neither you nor I.

Sure. Idle speculation is one thing. Calling for swingeing change from "the powers that be" is another.

Amenophobis wrote:

LSJ did a fine job maintaining the rules-integrity for this game all this time. IMO, there have been a few bad calls regarding contents of sets and implementation of groups - but that is maybe just me being burned by AH and DS and their less then satisfactory bunch of 10 vamps in each clan to build the crypts from...
As I understand it LSJ is devoting a lot less time to his role as rules-monger now. It's convenient for him to have a VTES forum on BGG, too, as he is already quite involved there.
The VEKN would need him here on VEKN.NET, but that is atm wishful thinking.
Maybe it's time to consider a successor?

Maybe it's time to split the game into BGG, current rulebook and Vekn rules variants, with different governing bodies, titles, champions etc. just like boxing! Maybe not.
There is a WORLD of difference between acting as a rules advisory, and repository of knowledge to wholesale changing the rules of the game.

Amenophobis wrote:

WW was fine before CCP took them over. I remember Steve Wieck being an enthusiastic supporter of VTES and there were semi-regular chats going on, and the Players' Guide stems from that time, too.
The lack of support from CCP was aggravating (no pun intended).

Ok. I don't. I'm not sure how that progresses things in either case.

Amenophobis wrote:

We may find in the future that we have to adapt to new situations. Already supply of HttB and KoT is scarce at best (inexistent for starters), and that was the best source to obtain cards like Deflection and Villein (and other power rares, uncommons and commons). The power level in those last sets increased noticably and the print size decreased as well. Not a good situation. It will take some time to see the repercussions of those facts fully in the tournament scene, but that will come for sure.

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at here.
We now have a finite supply of cards. Getting hold of them may or may not be easier in future (new cards become rarer, second hand become more common). People may or may not take advantage of that, which might or might not have an impact on tournaments, which may or may not require change? So are you in fact advocating NOT changing things until the effects of this are seen?

Amenophobis wrote:

The VEKN is now the steering council for VTES as they are the players' organisation. It would be wise, if they explored all possible avenues, even if some turn out to be unfeasible or detrimental to the game in the end.

All possible avenues of *what*?

Amenophobis wrote:

Once VTES is taken up again by another or the same company again, things might look different, but for the time being, the ideas tossed around should be explored and implemented where doable and needed, even if only for a limited time period (i.e. when the new company takes over).

You mean if, not once. The operant word in this passage is NEEDED. I've yet to hear anything remotely resembling facts demonstrating change is necessary.

Amenophobis wrote:

Hunamity wouldn't be where it is now, if things had never been changed and re-examined, no? B)

Thanks for that folksy aphorism. Equally: Humanity wouldn't be where it is without considering the reasons for and the impact of change.

BeAst wrote:

Amenophobis wrote:

Once VTES is taken up again by another or the same company again, things might look different, but for the time being, the ideas tossed around should be explored and implemented where doable and needed, even if only for a limited time period (i.e. when the new company takes over).

You mean if, not once. The operant word in this passage is NEEDED. I've yet to hear anything remotely resembling facts demonstrating change is necessary.

What would constitute an absolute fact demonstrating that change is necessary? Can such a thing exist for this game? I think not. Do we never try to change anything, no matter what or do we accept uncertainty?

Difficult.
I'm going to go with -
a) something beyond individual annecdotal opinion
b) something wanted by the majority of the player base
c) something that stands up to rigorous testing and scrutiny

at least.

Actually, I'll tell you what. If you can show how (e.g.) removing villein from play in your local group has massively improved things for everyone, then maybe we can look at further testing.