[Fairyworld] Examining combat cards and strategies and how they should work

skimflux wrote:

Brum wrote:

Lech wrote:

Yep, and the rule that show that s:ce isn't well integrated into ruleset.

More like Combat is not well integrated into the Ruleset.
It is too far away from the win condition.

Long discussion, I know.

I would over simplify combat and make it actually matter.
Until then, Banishment continues to be the best combat card in the game.

I would argue that the popularity of Pentex Subversion and Banishment shows that combat is not really 'too far away from the win condition' but rather that it is not as efficient as those more popular cards.

Unfortunately arguing doesn't help here.
Math does.
If one takes away the emotion from the analysis, one sees things clearer. At least it has worked for me.

If 80% to 90% of a deck is just combat, instead of stealth N bleed or a solid politics module, you're fardest from the win condition than the other 2 counterparts.
If all three archetypes have good crypts to work with and you leave table context out of the equation.

I also don't subscribe to the theory that if something stands out as stronger, the way to even things out is to rebuke the strong. That breeds mediocrity.
I think it is far better to empower all the others that need to grow.

So yeah, combat as a pure strategy is the weakest of the 4 main archetypes (wall, politics, bleed and combat) in a vacuum.
I think that it should be stronger.
Without breaking the game, of course.

Say... Disarm burns pool instead of subtracting strength...

Or an action
pot pre: ruch a minion at +2 tealth
POT PRE: sup govern text

Hell, go wild and give one of these to everyone.
Inf text to help their strategy and sup govern text.

Or a reaction (brujah, or gangrel or nosferatu or potence or whatever people think would be a good idea to help):

Burn Assets
Burn a vehicle or a location you control.
Deflect a bleed and put this card on the bleeder. This minion may enter combat with the bleeder.
Burn this card on the bleeder's unlock phase.

Not real serious ideas.
Just hypothetical examples

Before doing something you have to state your goal, then provide some proofed sequence of events between you planned actions and this goal.

It's especially important in game design, where you theoretically can do whatever, there is no physical limits like roof falling down on your head in architecture.

Combat, in an understanding of "action which makes other vampire unable to act" (to include banishment) is the worse thing to have in VtES - it destroys prey/predator structure, it makes people unable to meaningfully participate in the game and puts their preys randomly in "free reign" situation.

So I see no possible chain of events from making this mess "better" (aka more effective) to making the game better. Actually the road leads other way.

Ratadin wrote:

Now, what is exactly what you feel is wrong with combat.

Combat is effectively not a part of the game competitively. Decks routinely running around with a few red cards is curious as an acceptable meta end game. About 20% of the cards in game are combat cards and deck representation is far below that.

It is overly complex and card intensive to implement in addition to underwhelming even if successful.

I can accept that the current state 'works for you' but other than being obtuse it is hard to understand how one could fail to see that it doesn't work in general.

elotar wrote:

Before doing something you have to state your goal, then provide some proofed sequence of events between you planned actions and this goal.

It's especially important in game design, where you theoretically can do whatever, there is no physical limits like roof falling down on your head in architecture.

Combat, in an understanding of "action which makes other vampire unable to act" (to include banishment) is the worse thing to have in VtES - it destroys prey/predator structure, it makes people unable to meaningfully participate in the game and puts their preys randomly in "free reign" situation.

So I see no possible chain of events from making this mess "better" (aka more effective) to making the game better. Actually the road leads other way.

Arguably, it's preventing people from playing greedy decks with no combat cards whatsoever. It's important aspect of the game, and if someone choose to not play any combat at all, he should suffer horrible death.

Lech wrote:

Arguably, it's preventing people from playing greedy decks with no combat cards whatsoever. It's important aspect of the game, and if someone choose to not play any combat at all, he should suffer horrible death.

So you goal is to prevent people to play the decks they like, your means to reach it is to make them suffer until they submit.

Can't share any of it.

Mewcat wrote:

Combat is effectively not a part of the game competitively.

From which competitions do you getting this crazy ideas?

There was some time ago metagame statistics from one of the EC, combat was present in absolute majority of the decks.

Modedit\\ Please keep consecutive quotes within a single post. No double-posting.

Mewcat wrote:

Ratadin wrote:

Now, what is exactly what you feel is wrong with combat.

...It is overly complex and card intensive to implement in addition to underwhelming even if successful.

I mean, combat is a very tricky mechanic because VTES is a multiplayer game. If one knows what they are doing, combat can certainly contribute to the winning strategy in a deck. But if played a different way, it can do nothing other than make someone else lose.

My outsider opinion is that VTES has some "unwritten rules" that ensure responsible play. I have read about "responsible bleeding," or not just bleeding out your grand prey when bounced. I feel like a similar concept exists for combat, where players are seen as irresponsible if they don't play combat "the right way." These unwritten rules contribute to the social part of VTES that a lot of people find charming.