>How is expanding the market of players going to harm the older players?
>It's not like we're turning it into a completely new game, or shutting
>people out from using Jyhad cards. The change had to happen, for the
>benefit of the overall game.
Tom, you're a nice guy and have put up with a lot of sh*t on this
list, so I hate to be contrary with you, but I've got to challenge this
line of thinking. Now, obviously expanding the market of players can
only benefit the game and its players. Changing the name of the game to
something a little more obvious than _Jyhad_ is a reasonable way to try
to do this. I have no big, big problem with the name change. I think
most of the people on this list can live with it too. The problem for me
is the issue of the card backs.
No, you are not churning out a completely new game, but you are
effectively shutting people out of the game by creating such a problem
for Jyhad card owners. Face it, differing cards backs marks them, both
for the player using them and her/his opponents. This might not make too
big a difference to people playing with strangers in a tournament, since
said strangers will not be familiar with the player's card collection and
therefore cannot use the card back information to much effect (though
the aforementioned strangers might very well not like how it marks the
cards for their bearer, who IS quite familiar with her/his own card
collection). However, I do not intend to spend much, if any, of my time
playing in tournaments. I do and will contuinue to play with a
certain, local group of fellow players. They have and will continue to
have a good sense of what my collection is like. If I were to get V:tES
cards, they would eventually get a handle for what I have with one back
and what I have with the other, where there is crossover, and where there
isn't. Right away they can be certain that any "Jyhad" cards will not be
anything from Dark Sovereigns. Such marking brings a new and unwelcome
element to the game. This is not The Great Dalmuti.
Please explain to me why the card backs MUST change with the name
"for the benefit of the overall game"! There is no good reason why they
MUST! They have noithing to do with play, they're just card backs. The
only way they can influence play is a means of marking cards. Is it
purley the marketting issue? New players, at whom the name change is
targetted, will not see the card backs until they've already bitten (sorry).
The previous compromise, where the crypt cards say "Vampire" and the library
cards read "Jyhad" works very well. One could easily see how the
players wage the war with their "Jyhad" cards. New cards backs not only
aren't essential, they're totally irrelevant to the marketting campaign.
The backs of the cards cannot help sales--but they can hurt them.
If the library cards, which include those hard-to-get rare1's,
read "Vampire", then you're going to lose all of your current players
who don't want to play with marked cards. That is certainly a large
proportion of them. Maybe V:tES can limp along with an almost totally new
set of customers, but would't you like to keep the old ones, too? Well,
you won't if you treat them like this. I, for one, am through with
WoTC. I am not a card game masochist and I won't take my slap on the
face and return, money in hand, for some more. I know a lot of people
who won't buy V:tES for the same reason, and at least one other who is
also calling it quits with your company for all time.
James M. Leithead,
former WoTC customer
James M. Leithead <jmle...@mtu.edu> wrote:
>I do and will contuinue to play with a
>certain, local group of fellow players. They have and will continue to
>have a good sense of what my collection is like. If I were to get V:tES
>cards, they would eventually get a handle for what I have with one back
>and what I have with the other, where there is crossover, and where there
>isn't. Right away they can be certain that any "Jyhad" cards will not be
>anything from Dark Sovereigns. Such marking brings a new and unwelcome
>element to the game. This is not The Great Dalmuti.
I would think that in friendly play, everyone should be able to come
to an agreement not to spy on each others' card backs. And even if they
do notice the Dark Sovereign card back on the top of your library, this
isn't going to help them all that much, especially if you have a variety
of DS cards in your deck. Is that card the Vote That Will Kill Them,
or just a Chimestry skill card?
> Please explain to me why the card backs MUST change with the name
>"for the benefit of the overall game"! There is no good reason why they>MUST! They have noithing to do with play, they're just card backs...
V:TES should provide a uniform look and feel. Having holdovers from
past editions of the game detracts from this look and feel.
> If the library cards, which include those hard-to-get rare1's,
>read "Vampire", then you're going to lose all of your current players
>who don't want to play with marked cards. That is certainly a large
>proportion of them. Maybe V:tES can limp along with an almost totally new>set of customers, but would't you like to keep the old ones, too?...
Yes. Which is why we hope that people will actually try the game with
mixed backs and see what they think of it, rather than simply writing it
off as hopeless broken, which is what everyone seems to be doing. We're
aware of the concerns over marked decks. It is our opinion that they just
don't break the game to anywhere near the extent that the detractors are
saying they will.
Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
On 4 May 1995, Thomas R Wylie wrote:
-snip a bit
>
> V:TES should provide a uniform look and feel. Having holdovers from
> past editions of the game detracts from this look and feel.
>> Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for
> aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
>
Now how can the original (read FIRST) version be a holdover? The Jyhad
version was first, and the V:TES version is the (problem-causing) new
upstart. Or in other terms, Jyhad is the Justicar, and V:TES is a lowly,
unruly, annoying little Caitiff. (If it even qualifies to be that old.)
The game _Jyhad_ should have a "uniform look and feel", and Wotc is
destroying this with all new card backs sporting nonsense like V:TES. At
least with the previous proposed change (just the crypt) there was a
chance at maintaining the "uniform look and feel" with not to bad an
explanation. But you guys just threw that idea away.(Along with its
acceptance by the players _read BUYERS_ of JYHAD.) And there was no
mention or insinuation that the first proposal was tentative. It was
offered up as a decision, not a possibility.(If there had been any
indication of it being a "possibility," the discussions of it would not
have died down. They would still be going on today, instead of this new
Dramatic Proposal you have thrown in our face with your Card Back
Restructure.
Remy
leb...@u.washington.edu | It's not my fault!
Gambit at the U.W. | Laugh it up fuzzball!
| - Han Solo
"I don't want the world, I just want your half."
"Life is like a riddle, and I'm really stumped."
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) wrote:
> V:TES should provide a uniform look and feel. Having holdovers from
> past editions of the game detracts from this look and feel.
Peace Tom,
Jyhad does provide a uniform look and feel. Introducing new card backs
in new edtions of the game detracts from this look and feel.
> > If the library cards, which include those hard-to-get rare1's,
> >read "Vampire", then you're going to lose all of your current players
> >who don't want to play with marked cards. That is certainly a large
> >proportion of them. Maybe V:tES can limp along with an almost totally new
> >set of customers, but would't you like to keep the old ones, too?...
>
> Yes. Which is why we hope that people will actually try the game with
> mixed backs and see what they think of it, rather than simply writing it
> off as hopeless broken, which is what everyone seems to be doing. We're
> aware of the concerns over marked decks. It is our opinion that they just
> don't break the game to anywhere near the extent that the detractors are
> saying they will.
Now I know this is going to sound smart-assed, but it is not meant to be:
which opinion is more important to the financial success of VtES - the DTR's
or the established players?
Nil carborundum illigitimi,
James R. McClure Jr.
The OS/2 Apostle
<insert disclaimer here>
In article <3ob540$f...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>,
Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote:
>> Please explain to me why the card backs MUST change with the name
>>"for the benefit of the overall game"! There is no good reason why they
>>MUST! They have noithing to do with play, they're just card backs...>>V:TES should provide a uniform look and feel. Having holdovers from
>past editions of the game detracts from this look and feel.
Jyhad should provide a uniform look and feel. Changing the look
of the game midstream in future editions of the game detracts from this
look and feel.
>mixed backs and see what they think of it, rather than simply writing it>off as hopeless broken, which is what everyone seems to be doing. We're
>aware of the concerns over marked decks. It is our opinion that they just
>don't break the game to anywhere near the extent that the detractors are
>saying they will.
I don't think that the game will be seriously broken, but I *do*
think that the dynamic of the game will be changed, and in a way that I
do not like. I don't want to have to deal with the marked deck issue
*at all*, much less "just a little." But you're forcing it on me by
this change.
| If you've got a hot lead on a new | *--Joe--*
| PC game, call the announce line at | js...@vt.edu
| ** csi...@discus.ise.vt.edu ** |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------------------
"Carnivores, oy!" -- Timon, TLK
Tom Wylie writes:
>V:TES should provide a uniform look and feel. Having holdovers from
>past editions of the game detracts from this look and feel.
Remember that, folks. If you stick around, and play with a mixed deck,
you're detracting from the game. :-(
Basically, anybody playing with or against mixed decks is - well, you
could say "not playing with a full deck". :-)
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
On 4 May 1995, Thomas R Wylie wrote:
> Yes. Which is why we hope that people will actually try the game with> mixed backs and see what they think of it, rather than simply writing it
> off as hopeless broken, which is what everyone seems to be doing. We're
> aware of the concerns over marked decks. It is our opinion that they just
> don't break the game to anywhere near the extent that the detractors are
> saying they will.
>> Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for
> aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
Greetings,
I hate to admit this. But I _AM_ going to buy Dark Soverigns and
give it a try if the game does not work, I'll move on to Star Wars (if
its any good) or anything else that is new.
My two blood counters,
Marty Runyon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"One day, I shall come back. Yes, I shall come back. Until then, there
must be no regrets, no tears, no anxieties. Just go forward in all your
beliefs, and prove to me that I am not mistaken in mine."
- The Doctor, "Doctor Who: The Dalek Invasion of Earth"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marty "Anjin" Runyon <run...@robles.callutheran.edu>
------------------------------------------------------------------------