file New round structure - OPTION B - we'd like your feedback!

18 May 2018 13:00 #87120 by Malachy
I think option B would be too much. EVEN if we keep the current wording. Complexity is not a bad thing, we are not simpletons, neither are the beginners who are new to the game. All we need is clarifying, not simplifying. Option A is much more comprehensible, and it would be good to indeed clarify some of these shady combat windows.
As I was reading this thread, I saw many silly ideas and explanations. I firmly believe that the complexity of Combat in VtES (a game in the game itself) is very characteristic and should not be dumbed down. But I also agree on that we should use this opprotunity clarify shady happenings in Combat.

NC of Hungary

///

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
18 May 2018 13:28 #87123 by ur_vampire
For my 5 cent I agree with Malachy

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
18 May 2018 13:58 #87124 by Brum
For a part that is very far from the winning condition of the game, combat has a lot of cards, a lot of rules, a lot of rulings and a lot of importance.

If you want to win this game, the best combat card is Banishment.
The second is the s:ce you can have access to.

It's like if our human appendix was the size of our liver, with no useful functionality at all.

Sure, there are a few combat decks that can be competitive.
But they are rare and in those cases, combat is support.

I think the less cards you need to create a competent combat (a combat that takes the opponent's minion away from the ready region), the more space you have for ousting cards and the more combat will be used as a strategy to win.

Or I'm wrong and combat is on par with bleed or politics... :)
The following user(s) said Thank You: Bloodartist

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
18 May 2018 14:01 #87125 by ReverendRevolver
The current problems are with timing windows be ambiguous as hell and unofficial wording and slang being how combat flows right for experienced players.

Any pres?
(No)
Do you manuever ?
(Long)
Strike with what?
(I wave)
Additionals?
(Pursuit to cycle and wave again)
Do you wish to press?
(Yes)
(Taste for zero to cycle...)

So, renaming is relevant for new cards printed regardless of option chosen.
I was unaware there were 2 threads on this until this morning, but here's my synopsis without saying AorB is better:

Combat structure, wording and timing is clunky and now is the time to aim to fix it.

We are focusing on structure and kicking around wording when timing has as much impact as structure in A&B, since it modifies combats effects and relevance.
So, we need to be very clear on intended timing of all cards. As of now, B gives large open windows which are by nature more loosely defined but substantially less ambiguous than current system, while A by having an additional part, has everything in a less broad but more specific and defined window, which doesn't create differing Interactions like B, but does slam the door on ambiguity a lot harder.

B supporters are more than willing to adopt fewer parts as long as it is defined from the start which of the broad phases certain things happen in, which will make each broad window cut into more defined subsections. They are also ok with combat being made less impactful in strategies meant to counteract combat, because timing windows will already be partitioned off substantially, and accommodating certain cards (grapple) isn't as important as the broad goal of super simplification. In this case, the problem is remedied by grapple wording stating its window clearly, as "in the manuever step" like "Only usable at close range when the opposing minion declines to play additional manuevers." Thus makes it like deflection and other bounce; you have passed the point in the action where you can block if you're playing deflection. If you've declined, you've declined, you can't say your rather block than play My Enemys Enemy when you realize that your predator is dropping conditioning which will oust your grandprey.

Anyway,
Option A supporters want change but in a more tightly structured sequence, not unlike B, but with more defined times and more similarities with how the current structure SHOULD be than with a new system that changes much function.

I guess my big question is why are there 2 instead of 3 threads at this point, since we need to change strike order or rename first strike, which means we could add first strike to some dodges and SCE, but not all, which would add a more intuitive attack order and change some cards for the better.
I would propose the BEST sce still being such, Majesty and earth meld should have first strike. But also greatly playable sce like catatonic fear and form of myst should not be at first strike. So only the first 2 get erratad, but only those 2 retain current functionality, just as in the case of "free" bleed pump and limitations. As I stated before, it would effect dodges as well, but strikes would go:
First strike:
Sce, then dodge, then all else
Resolution of everything else.
Sce
Dodge
Normal strike effects and environmental damage
Normal damage

This is important because we need to change it to this, or remove first strike, or rename first strike as part of A or B.

I'm not asking if we need to ask how far is too far, I'm stating the actual task is streamline combat and maintain its relevance without making it not matter or matter too much(spoiler, nobody has made it matter too much with any suggestion. An example of such suggestions would be first strike coming before dodge and sce with none of those getting priority timing, which shakes things up but ultimately may do so too much.)

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
18 May 2018 14:52 #87129 by Ankha

Combat structure, wording and timing is clunky and now is the time to aim to fix it.

We are focusing on structure and kicking around wording when timing has as much impact as structure in A&B, since it modifies combats effects and relevance.
So, we need to be very clear on intended timing of all cards. As of now, B gives large open windows which are by nature more loosely defined but substantially less ambiguous than current system, while A by having an additional part, has everything in a less broad but more specific and defined window, which doesn't create differing Interactions like B, but does slam the door on ambiguity a lot harder.

B supporters are more than willing to adopt fewer parts as long as it is defined from the start which of the broad phases certain things happen in, which will make each broad window cut into more defined subsections. They are also ok with combat being made less impactful in strategies meant to counteract combat, because timing windows will already be partitioned off substantially, and accommodating certain cards (grapple) isn't as important as the broad goal of super simplification. In this case, the problem is remedied by grapple wording stating its window clearly, as "in the manuever step" like "Only usable at close range when the opposing minion declines to play additional manuevers." Thus makes it like deflection and other bounce; you have passed the point in the action where you can block if you're playing deflection. If you've declined, you've declined, you can't say your rather block than play My Enemys Enemy when you realize that your predator is dropping conditioning which will oust your grandprey.

Anyway,
Option A supporters want change but in a more tightly structured sequence, not unlike B, but with more defined times and more similarities with how the current structure SHOULD be than with a new system that changes much function.

Thanks for that nice summary.

I guess my big question is why are there 2 instead of 3 threads at this point, since we need to change strike order or rename first strike, which means we could add first strike to some dodges and SCE, but not all, which would add a more intuitive attack order and change some cards for the better.

Renaming first strike seems a better option (we're not trying to balance combat here, just trying to make it clearer for new players).

Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
18 May 2018 14:59 #87132 by Malachy
You are very wrong there, my fellow Methuselah :) Combat is in a very dominant position, and this will increase even more, with the latest set. Sure, an oppressive combat section contains more cards, then the 7 Majesty vote deck, but creating a decent combat section is quite challenging. Let's bring the good ol' ANI decks... it outs and destroys with 3 cards: Deep Song, Carrion - Aid... well maybe that's an exception because there's nothing more efficient than ani combat. But it is there, and it is strong imo, even without the obvious ousting cardtext (meaning bleed and vote).

I'm still not getting this First Strike - S:CE - Dodge madness... What's so confusing? Dodge and S:CE are defensive strikes... they are meant to negate the opposing minion's harmful strike effects, kinda unresolving them, regardless of time...I have never in my life had problem explaining this interaction EVER to a newbie nor they've ever had problem understanding it. Cycling Taste of Vitae against an ally... that's another story :D

NC of Hungary

///

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
Moderators: AnkhaKraus
Time to create page: 0.075 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum