ReVamping VTES?

ReverendRevolver wrote:

More to Lonkkas point, I have never understood why we gotta be so hostile about everything all the damn time.

My favorite facility manager used to do this thing where he would say something terrible but add "respectfully" to the beginning or end, so the joke was we'd say things like "eat shit and die, respectfully..."
Why do we as a community tend to act like this (but not In jest) so often?
You'd think we could be more clever about shooting down bad ideas, at least more passive aggressive than openly hostile.
I'm just happy the OP stuck around. Proves he may have the tenacity for some of the longer games that happen sometimes......

I think it's the result of the anonymity of the internet making normally nice people act rude. It's the same reason one would say "excuse me" if a complete stranger were to walk in their path, but honk at a complete stranger who cut them off in their car. I like to think the way one acts online says a lot about that person. If one is normally nice but acts like a dink online, that person's a phony with Internet beer balls.

Honestly, I'm not seeing these rude or disrepectful replies here from either side. Expressing contrary opinions, even strongly so, isn't the same thing as hostility, right?

I agree with Cat_in_Exile.

I'm thinking I'm perhaps blunt, a national trait after all, but I don't recall being rude (at least not on purpose).

In my case it is pretty easy to see who I am based on the title I give in my posts. Doesn't require much sleuthing...

Lönkka wrote:

I agree with Cat_in_Exile.

I'm thinking I'm perhaps blunt, a national trait after all, but I don't recall being rude (at least not on purpose).

In my case it is pretty easy to see who I am based on the title I give in my posts. Doesn't require much sleuthing...

I am now the second person in this thread to tell you that, yes, you are one of the people whose posts are in poor taste. You accused the original poster of being someone who they are not and insisted that they are not who they claim to be. Posts like this are not funny, not interesting, and are rude. Again, I'm the second person to respond to you about your posts, so please keep an open mind to this critique.

That said, some of your other posts are actually very interesting and have some good ideas. I think we'd all like to see more of those interesting posts from you. I actually tried to respond to one of them.

summary thread in chronological order:
- Questions & suggestions
- Discussion
- Arguments, rants and flames
- Circle jerking

Proceed

I'm not even upset or put-off at anything Lonkka has said. I actually expected such a response. It is understandable that veterans of this game would want to defend it.

That being said, I think defending VTES from a hypothetical spiritual successor product is... Fallacious? Misconceived? As I said previously, it wouldn't kill VTES as it would be a completely separate product despite many similarities. Also, VTES is basically dead, or torporized, or if you prefer, kept in a vegetable state on life-support by its die-hard community. There are maybe 1000+ active players world-wide?

I'm not trying to disparage VTES or its players. I just think the pros of a spiritual successor outweigh the cons. It wouldn't invalidate or obsolete VTES anymore than Super Mario N64 invalidated or obsoleted Super Mario Bros.

Lönkka wrote:

Once again, if I were to start playing new game, say, MtG and after a few games would start pushing for (major) changes to the game in the vein: "I think these changes would really make the game rock. At least to me. And it would then be up to par with what is considered cool today by some people.", what would you think would happen and how the players would react?

If MTG in your scenario was virtually dead, kept alive by a handful of players (vs the millions it currently has) and your suggestion was a spiritual successor, one that keeps the best parts of MTG but tweaks a few things and gives it a new coat of paint and a fresh start, with the intention of avoiding a lot of problems the old game ran into, then maybe the community would be inclined to discuss such a possibility, but surely some would say that MTG was already perfect and needed no changes.

@GreyB: I read your replies on the "What is VTES missing?" post, and I agree with you that a change to the VP system could speed up games and facilitate interesting gameplay. My suggestion, for the record, was: "The Edge grants 1 pool and 1 VP if you have it during your untap phase." This would encourage players to actually bleed one another, and give combat decks the boost they need without necessarily giving them more bleed power (since they could bleed for 1 and then try to hold onto the Edge) and make things interesting for intercept / wall decks. Anyways, I hope to hear your thoughts on the topic.