What is missing from VtES?

Blooded wrote:

Combat? Fun. Sneak Bleed? Boring. Walls? Boring.

Fun for you does not mean it's fun for everybody else.

elotar wrote:

Fun for you does not mean it's fun for everybody else.

I can't agree more. Some people intensely hate bleed decks, some intensely hate wall decks, well you can see where I am going with this. There's always someone that hates a certain aspect of the game and thats why the game is so interesting.

Decks are destroyed by combat decks without players being able to play.
Decks are destroyed by bleed decks without players being able to play.
Decks are destroyed by vote decks without players being able to play.

Usual argument: "But when you are destroyed by a bleed or vote deck, at least you have minions you can act with".

Oh you mean I can help my predator and soften up his next prey? Yeah I can see how that brings me more joy...

Fact is, if you're beat by a deck you can't defend properly against, you're beat, any further actions are futile. And currently there are a lot more means to defend against combat decks for all clans than there are to defend against bleed decks for example (see bounce discussions).

ashur wrote:

I think negotiation is fun. Intrigue is fun.

Combat decks don't exclude that from the game, far from it, in fact you get more negotiation and intrigue, those rushes can go anywhere! Rush decks also get table aggro early on, turning it into a 4 vs 1 game where the rush deck usually doesn't survive.

ashur wrote:

Just hitting peoples vamps into torpor, building a crater, usually not being able to oust, just destroying other players possibilities for action, isn´t my idea of fun.

I agree with this sentence as a whole.

ashur wrote:

...usually not being able to oust...

And this is where every discussion goes wrong imo. As I see it, combat decks are not able to oust that well because of 2 major reasons:

1.) They usually NEED to rush their aggressive predator in order to survive, wasting their combat going backward.
2.) A rush deck requires so much cards dedicated to rush combat, there's no room in the deck for a proper oust strategy.

This turns nearly every rush combat deck into an annoying frustrating experience. Everyone champions this as the main reason why combat should not be made viable. So the problem rush decks have is why it's should never be made viable? No not really, the real reason is preference.

People don't like the rock in this rock/scissors/paper game, lets keep the rock weak.

ashur wrote:

If i´d redesign VTES I would construct the combat bit entirely different. But I guess it´s a matter of taste.

If my neighbour would redesign VTES it would surely be different than how I would redesign VTES. Yes it is a matter of taste, so I would rather discuss options with peers on how to improve what we have and would REALLY REALLY love it if ALL aspects of the game get a fair treatment.

Right now every slightest hint of a suggestion in making combat viable is met with extreme hostility on this forum, for in my opinion, the wrong reasons.

GreyB wrote:

People don't like the rock in this rock/scissors/paper game, lets keep the rock weak.

...

Yes it is a matter of taste, so I would rather discuss options with peers on how to improve what we have and would REALLY REALLY love it if ALL aspects of the game get a fair treatment.

You misunderstanding the part, combat plays in VtES. It's not r/p/s with bleed and vote, so it shouldn't be made "fair" to give this strategy same ousting power.

It's supporting mechanizm, like a stealth or, even a better example - hunt.

"I think hunt is a fundamental action of a vampire game. Hunt is fun. Nobody dislikes hunt. Why I can't win a game with the hunt deck?"

elotar wrote:

GreyB wrote:

People don't like the rock in this rock/scissors/paper game, lets keep the rock weak.

...

Yes it is a matter of taste, so I would rather discuss options with peers on how to improve what we have and would REALLY REALLY love it if ALL aspects of the game get a fair treatment.

You misunderstanding the part, combat plays in VtES. It's not r/p/s with bleed and vote, so it shouldn't be made "fair" to give this strategy same ousting power.

It's supporting mechanizm, like a stealth or, even a better example - hunt.

"I think hunt is a fundamental action of a vampire game. Hunt is fun. Nobody dislikes hunt. Why I can't win a game with the hunt deck?"

In fact you can win a game with a hunt deck.

cordovader wrote:

In fact you can win a game with a hunt deck.

In what way is combat not viable?

NCQ Marseille
Dutch ECQ
Brazilian NC 2016
Brazilian CCQ
English EQC [sic]
etc.

Seem to be making arguments for how the game was maybe 10 years ago or so. Combat, even of the rush sort, has been a major factor for some time now. Sure, it's usually intercept combat because intercept combat is just a better archetype than rush, but whether it's Animalism rush or multirush or whatever, the wins exist.

Can even argue that Deep Song has really made rush and bleed bruise into one archetype, solving the problem of older bruise and bleed decks being often awful.

Ally beats, sticks, .44s, Alastor, and, uh, Crows are rather common.

The game has a ton of cards. It's not that strategies aren't viable, it's that some strategies are far harder to accomplish. Animalism has the best offensive combat because it's so efficient, including some defense, and because the game isn't like how it was 20 years ago where 20 Majestys wouldn't be considered unusual or Earth Meld/Form of Mist was far more common because there were simply fewer cards to build decks out of. To make Cel/Pot combat, a highly redundant discipline combination that is also extremely common, more tournament viable does require something, but so does making Cel/Pot bleed or Cel/Pot vote.

The argument that elite disciplineless bounce makes every deck alike is not something I buy because what makes decks alike is fitting Dominate into Brujah+D, Gangrel+D, Nos+D, Toreador+D, !Gangrel+D, !Nos+D, Tzimisce+D (not as common as once was, perhaps), Ass+D, FoS+D, Ravnos+D, superstar+D, pick a discipline+D. Just because every deck can play wakes doesn't mean every deck does.

And, I've posted multiple times what disciplineless bounce card I'd do and Embraces couldn't play it. My concern, along this axis, with the game isn't winnies or fatties, it's the decline of the midcaps. Having a deck of 5-7 caps that doesn't get run over seems far more difficult, though I don't know if that's actually true. Winnies don't need bounce and fatties will in all likelihood either have it or have Parity Shift and Second Tradition or Villein + Golconda or something "quality" to do besides bounce. It's the midcaps who may or may not have Dom or AUS, yet who will need it.