On Parity Shift 6. "problematic card".
02 Dec 2011 21:41 #16867
by Haze
Replied by Haze on topic Re: On Parity Shift 6. "problematic card".
I'm CON on this card
Everyone knows it's ridiculously good. And while it may not quite be on the level of "RtI broken" I think it still warps the entire political aspect of the VTES too much to be healthy for the game.
Some may compare it to dominate cards, but I don't think that's entirely fair. It's crazy how strong dominate is, but it's not because of any one card in particular. Govern comes the closest, bleed for 3 or gain 3 pool, but even then you have to choose which you want. Parity Shift gives you both pool damage and pool gain at the same time. It's also true you could get bled by one vampire for 6+, but that requires multiple cards to be played (not to mention the blood costs). Parity Shift... usually just one card. VTES should be about the card combinations, and not playing one single power card to handle everything. In this case, both offense and defense.
Dominate may be too strong but it's still playing within the intent of the game. Rather, the reason Dominate is overpowered is not because of individual cards, but because it got almost ALL the good cards in one discipline, and usually the best version of each to boot.
Some have said that you don't always have vote lock so you have to give pool away for votes. I don't think that's really much of a flaw. More like, it has bribery already built-in, so it has a better chance of passing! I've often seen people support the vote for only 1 or 2 pool, though I imagine others have different experiences. Even with the pool given away for votes, it's still doing a huge amount of pool damage, so it's seen as a fair deal for the player calling it.
the Prince/Justicar requirement isn't that much of a hoop to jump through. Everyone knows you can build a crypt of 12 prince cards. But for evidence, I'd like to point out that of all the crypt cards, you can find 7 princes for 6 cap or less. That's not including Victor Pelletier, who's a wildcard (and helps you lose pool to play parity shift, dang). For similarly powered titles below 7 cap in other sects, there is only 1 archbishop, 1 priscus, no independents, and 2 magaji. For having such a strong vote card, they also have the best crypt selection! This isn't even considering how easy it is to turn any 1-cap weenie into a clan Justicar, with extra votes thrown in to help it pass.
(For the same reason, to those who say Sabbat should get a similar card, I don't think it'll be very effective. It would still be easier to build around Camarilla princes since they're still cheaper, and still have better cards)
I also dislike the design of the card for going, "You're losing? Well, now you're winning!" Rubber-banding is terrible for games. I know this is just my own bias, but I'd rather see someone win for managing their pool between offense and defense, and not having the game go, "aww, you have the lowest pool. here's a pity bonus to help you catch up!" even if you were never bled and had really spent it all on vampires and assault rifles.
But really, all those reasons aside, the main reason I think Parity Shift needs changes is because getting rid of it will open up the voting field, adding more variety to the game. KRCs and Con Boons are really good by themselves. But people gravitate heavily towards Cam Princes because Parity Shift does the job of both KRC and Conboon together. It's a crutch, and I'd rather it were 1-per-methuselah or banned. Princes and Justicars would still have a lot of powerful toys to play with, such as the six tradition cards. I think other types of vote decks would become viable and played more often (maybe sabbat still needs a little boost though).
This isn't like trying to balance disciplines, because Dominate has ALL the tools and it's hard to pick out one problem card to take away, so it's better to just boost all the other disciplines to be more competitive. With voting, Parity Shift IS the one problem card that warps the game around it.
Everyone knows it's ridiculously good. And while it may not quite be on the level of "RtI broken" I think it still warps the entire political aspect of the VTES too much to be healthy for the game.
Some may compare it to dominate cards, but I don't think that's entirely fair. It's crazy how strong dominate is, but it's not because of any one card in particular. Govern comes the closest, bleed for 3 or gain 3 pool, but even then you have to choose which you want. Parity Shift gives you both pool damage and pool gain at the same time. It's also true you could get bled by one vampire for 6+, but that requires multiple cards to be played (not to mention the blood costs). Parity Shift... usually just one card. VTES should be about the card combinations, and not playing one single power card to handle everything. In this case, both offense and defense.
Dominate may be too strong but it's still playing within the intent of the game. Rather, the reason Dominate is overpowered is not because of individual cards, but because it got almost ALL the good cards in one discipline, and usually the best version of each to boot.
Some have said that you don't always have vote lock so you have to give pool away for votes. I don't think that's really much of a flaw. More like, it has bribery already built-in, so it has a better chance of passing! I've often seen people support the vote for only 1 or 2 pool, though I imagine others have different experiences. Even with the pool given away for votes, it's still doing a huge amount of pool damage, so it's seen as a fair deal for the player calling it.
the Prince/Justicar requirement isn't that much of a hoop to jump through. Everyone knows you can build a crypt of 12 prince cards. But for evidence, I'd like to point out that of all the crypt cards, you can find 7 princes for 6 cap or less. That's not including Victor Pelletier, who's a wildcard (and helps you lose pool to play parity shift, dang). For similarly powered titles below 7 cap in other sects, there is only 1 archbishop, 1 priscus, no independents, and 2 magaji. For having such a strong vote card, they also have the best crypt selection! This isn't even considering how easy it is to turn any 1-cap weenie into a clan Justicar, with extra votes thrown in to help it pass.
(For the same reason, to those who say Sabbat should get a similar card, I don't think it'll be very effective. It would still be easier to build around Camarilla princes since they're still cheaper, and still have better cards)
I also dislike the design of the card for going, "You're losing? Well, now you're winning!" Rubber-banding is terrible for games. I know this is just my own bias, but I'd rather see someone win for managing their pool between offense and defense, and not having the game go, "aww, you have the lowest pool. here's a pity bonus to help you catch up!" even if you were never bled and had really spent it all on vampires and assault rifles.
But really, all those reasons aside, the main reason I think Parity Shift needs changes is because getting rid of it will open up the voting field, adding more variety to the game. KRCs and Con Boons are really good by themselves. But people gravitate heavily towards Cam Princes because Parity Shift does the job of both KRC and Conboon together. It's a crutch, and I'd rather it were 1-per-methuselah or banned. Princes and Justicars would still have a lot of powerful toys to play with, such as the six tradition cards. I think other types of vote decks would become viable and played more often (maybe sabbat still needs a little boost though).
This isn't like trying to balance disciplines, because Dominate has ALL the tools and it's hard to pick out one problem card to take away, so it's better to just boost all the other disciplines to be more competitive. With voting, Parity Shift IS the one problem card that warps the game around it.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
02 Dec 2011 21:54 #16876
by Haze
Replied by Haze on topic Re: On Parity Shift 6. "problematic card".
a crazy hypothesis:
since parity shift always seems to spawn the most table discussion when played, yet it doesn't really add or remove pool from the table but just moves it around, perhaps it is partly responsible for timed out tables? banning or limiting it might speed up the average game length!
it's a trifle factor but I wonder if there's any truth to it
since parity shift always seems to spawn the most table discussion when played, yet it doesn't really add or remove pool from the table but just moves it around, perhaps it is partly responsible for timed out tables? banning or limiting it might speed up the average game length!
it's a trifle factor but I wonder if there's any truth to it
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
02 Dec 2011 21:57 #16879
by Ankha
Replied by Ankha on topic Re: On Parity Shift 6. "problematic card".
Consanguineous Boon creates pool, which is worse. Ban Consanguineous Boon.a crazy hypothesis:
since parity shift always seems to spawn the most table discussion when played, yet it doesn't really add or remove pool from the table but just moves it around, perhaps it is partly responsible for timed out tables? banning or limiting it might speed up the average game length!
it's a trifle factor but I wonder if there's any truth to it
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.182 seconds
- You are here:
-
Home
-
Forum
-
V:TES Discussion
-
Card Balance & Strategy Discussion
- On Parity Shift 6. "problematic card".