Why was V:TES online stopped ?

All is in the title...

On Jul 23, 11:22 am, "Orpheus" <orpheus.TAKEOU...@free.fr> wrote: > All is in the title... The developer had a nervous breakdown and "family" issues.

[ quoted text not captured ] Really ? That's a shame. Nobody to take the mantle ?

On Thu, 23 July 2009 18:27:23 +0200, "Orpheus" wrote: >>> All is in the title... >> The developer had a nervous breakdown and "family" issues. >Really ? That's a shame. Nobody to take the mantle ? CCG Workshop is completely gone, so it is unlikely that there were others involved. See also: http://www.ccgworkshop.com/

[ quoted text not captured ] I used it for a while, it was actually where I first learned the game. The software was buggy and they had a pretty bad selection of sets. I remember them skipping entire sets in favor of adding the new ones. That said, having a visual representation of the game was nice. They started charging for the service and it was like "you are charging $5/ month for this shit?" Sorry, I'm out. Brandon

On Jul 23, 9:22 am, "Orpheus" <orpheus.TAKEOU...@free.fr> wrote: > All is in the title... A good follow-up question would be, "why is the dead link still displayed on the web page?" Brandon

[ quoted text not captured ] Yup. But it would be nice if JOL incorporated some of those possibilities, really more real-time oriented. This being said, I haven't been on JOL for a long time, it might be much more than I remember. Orpheus

[ quoted text not captured ] It is quite nice, but it doesn't have any graphics.

[ quoted text not captured ] Considering the availability of the graphics, it's probably doable at this point. It would require replacing the name of the card with an href to the image, making "TAPPED" change the url to a 90 degree rotation of the image, and, the biggest thing, making sure the interface doesn't break - would probably need to be considerably wider, and would be even tougher to read on small screens than it is currently. Certainly not trivial, but possible, assuming that White Wolf wouldn't consider it a copyright infringement. Of course, I'm not George, so it's easy for me to speculate on the difficulty... =)

Lackey CCG is graphical, real time, and works quite nicely.....

Blooded Sand wrote: > Lackey CCG is graphical, real time, and works quite nicely..... Really ? To the extent of being a "better V:TES online" ? If so, it should be known, advertised and followed. Orpheus

[ quoted text not captured ] Well it kicks the ass of VtES online. ;) http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/a4ad272025b3f853

[ quoted text not captured ] Good. :) How big is the VTES community there ? Enough to find a game without organizing it with your friends first ?

On Jul 23, 9:25 pm, Blooded Sand <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote: > Well it kicks the ass of VtES online. ;) > > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/a4ad... I've seen a few generic CCG engines. This one is alright. This one has the same issue that most of them do: Not enough game-specific automation, no rules checking for the legality of actions, etc. But its better than play by E-mail.

[ quoted text not captured ] If you ask me those are exactly the kind of features you want to be avoiding. THe players can handly legality checks and, checking vamps can play the specific cards etc. All a system should try to do for my money is provide a manipulatable game state, ash heap, movement of cards and counters and be able to handle user decks. when you try to get software to 'understand' each cards effect and know the legality your asking for problems. Players are the best check for these things, not the software IMO. Ant

Anthony Coleman schrieb: [ quoted text not captured ] Unless you manage to medically insert a USB socket into LSJ�s head and plug him to the server system the automation is probably not a feature thats doable at all given the possible complexity of interactions. The being said it would certainly be nice for an online interface to show ruling for the card in addition to card text (at least on request/click).

For Portuguese speacking players, we have a small tutorial in our blog: http://domainlisboa.blogspot.com/2009/03/jogar-vtes-online-lackey-ccg.html Cheers, Tiago

On Jul 23, 10:45 pm, "Orpheus" <orpheus.TAKEOU...@free.fr> wrote: > Blooded Sand wrote: > > On Jul 23, 10:19 pm, "Orpheus" <orpheus.TAKEOU...@free.fr> wrote: > >> Blooded Sand wrote: > >>> Lackey CCG is graphical, real time, and works quite nicely..... > > >> Really ? To the extent of being a "better V:TES online" ? > > >> If so, it should be known, advertised and followed. > > >> Orpheus > > > Well it kicks the ass of VtES online. ;) > > >http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/a4ad... > > Good. :) > > How big is the VTES community there ? Enough to find a game without > organizing it with your friends first ? There is a fair amopunt of people, my main problem is the majority i have managed to find are al in brazil, which introduces some time differential issues for me, what with being in europe.

On Jul 23, 11:55 pm, Anthony Coleman <anthony.t.d.cole...@gmail.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] I have to disagree. The best feature of the most popular online CCG, Magic Online, is that it has an automated level 5 judge. Because players CAN'T handle legality checks. Players are awful at legality checks. This is evidenced by the hundreds of questions seen on this very newsgroup every month. And the hundreds of questions on EVERY CCG's newsgroup every month for that matter! To have a (near) perfect judge IS possible, if the CCG's management does what it is supposed to: Standardize wording on cards, and create an Oracle-like database of every card's true wording. You just need quality software, and a high quality of CCG mechanics driving the game.

On Jul 24, 9:02 am, Johannes Walch <johannes.wa...@vekn.de> wrote: > Anthony Coleman schrieb: > > > > > On Jul 23, 10:00 pm, Bill Ricardi <billrica...@googlemail.com> wrote: > >> On Jul 23, 9:25 pm, Blooded Sand <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>> Well it kicks the ass of VtES online. ;) > >>>http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/a4ad... > >> I've seen a few generic CCG engines. This one is alright. This one has > >> the same issue that most of them do: Not enough game-specific > >> automation, no rules checking for the legality of actions, etc. But > >> its better than play by E-mail. > > > If you ask me those are exactly the kind of features you want to be > > avoiding. THe players can handly legality checks and, checking vamps > > can play the specific cards etc. All a system should try to do for my > > money is provide a manipulatable game state, ash heap, movement of > > cards and counters and be able to handle user decks. when you try to > > get software to 'understand' each cards effect and know the legality > > your asking for problems. > > > Players are the best check for these things, not the software IMO. > > > Ant > > Unless you manage to medically insert a USB socket into LSJ´s head and > plug him to the server system the automation is probably not a feature > thats doable at all given the possible complexity of interactions. Magic has complexity issues that are similar if not greater, given that resolution in Magic is an _INTERRUPTIBLE_ FILO stack. In VTES, there are a lot less opportunities to 'interrupt' a chain of effects set in motion. And yet Magic Online's level 5 judge can handle it. It's very possible to code an excellent VTES judge. > The being said it would certainly be nice for an online interface to > show ruling for the card in addition to card text (at least on > request/click). VTES needs an Oracle-like database for rulings and 'true' card wordings, yes. That way LSJ could simply update one location, and everything would flow from that single source seamlessly. It would be trivial to have a download manager check for updates to the VTES 'oracle' and download the text or HTML versions of the cards and rulebook to a laptop, netbook, PDA, etc, and everyone running events could have it on hand.

[ quoted text not captured ] I guess it is possible to create a massive all knowing piece of software that understands every possible interaction of library cards, crypt cards, specials, rulings etc etc. I guess so, people do some pretty cool things with software so I'll take your word on that. I'd also guess that for a game like V:tES (and likely Magic, its a long long time since I've played so I dont really know, can anyone comment on the relative complexities?) the amount of time, resource and money that would take is massive and for a small game like vtes utterly disproportionate to the benefit. Perhaps my experience of vtes and vtes players is different to yours but I dont every really have many rules disputes in my games and any that I do have are very very quickly sorted with quick searches. And asto the number of rules questions on this forum, the NG seems to me to be the place where obscure card interactions are worked out and LSJ makes the rulings as they come up, the system seems to work fine. Its not a sign of player inability. > You just need quality software, and a high quality of CCG mechanics > driving the game. Real world: no one is going to spend the resource required to create this piece of software for vtes as its a significant amount of coding to get it right and vtes is a small game. So with that in mind I think its best to focus on a smooth, easy manipulatable game state that lets players easily control the regions, cards and counters and let the grey matter of the players handle rules. cheers, Anthony

On Jul 24, 11:12 am, Anthony Coleman <anthony.t.d.cole...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'd > also guess that for a game like V:tES (and likely Magic, its a long > long time since I've played so I dont really know, can anyone comment > on the relative complexities?) the amount of time, resource and money > that would take is massive and for a small game like vtes utterly > disproportionate to the benefit. It depends. Magic Online makes money hand over fist. If your product is good, they will come. > Perhaps my experience of vtes and vtes players is different to yours > but I dont every really have many rules disputes in my games and any > that I do have are very very quickly sorted with quick searches. Now imagine being able to play with thousands of people that you don't know, some better with the English language than others. That's what can happen if you play a CCG online. If you just use it to play with people you already know... well, you could have just met up with them as normal. When you don't know the quality of player on the other end, automated judges become much more important. > Real world: no one is going to spend the resource required to create > this piece of software for vtes as its a significant amount of coding > to get it right and vtes is a small game. VTES has broken into the Scrye top 10 figures many times. Its small by WOTC standards, but nearly everything is small by WOTC standards. It is a question of return on investment. How many new players would you attract to the game, and would virtual cards sell as well in VTES as they did in the case of Magic? The ability to play a game whenever you want, 24/7, without leaving your home is a massive perk, after all.

On Jul 24, 11:24 am, Bill Ricardi <billrica...@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Jul 24, 11:12 am, Anthony Coleman <anthony.t.d.cole...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > I'd > > also guess that for a game like V:tES (and likely Magic, its a long > > long time since I've played so I dont really know, can anyone comment > > on the relative complexities?) the amount of time, resource and money > > that would take is massive and for a small game like vtes utterly > > disproportionate to the benefit. > > It depends. Magic Online makes money hand over fist. If your product > is good, they will come. True, it would be a ballsy maneuver for vtes I suspect though, Magic always had a huge player base and due to its vanilla fantasy setting, two player nature and short playtime a much much bigger market for new players. > > Perhaps my experience of vtes and vtes players is different to yours > > but I dont every really have many rules disputes in my games and any > > that I do have are very very quickly sorted with quick searches. > > Now imagine being able to play with thousands of people that you don't > know, some better with the English language than others. That's what > can happen if you play a CCG online. If you just use it to play with > people you already know... well, you could have just met up with them > as normal. When you don't know the quality of player on the other end, > automated judges become much more important. As mentioned above I don't really see vtes hitting the kind of numbers where this becomes a major problem, I do see how this is important for a game you are selling online and that has a massive playerbase ala magic but vtes is neich and imo not going to ever be able to be sold as an online variant. Perhaps I lack vision or am being negative... but I trust my instinct on this. > > Real world: no one is going to spend the resource required to create > > this piece of software for vtes as its a significant amount of coding > > to get it right and vtes is a small game. > > VTES has broken into the Scrye top 10 figures many times. Its small by > WOTC standards, but nearly everything is small by WOTC standards. It > is a question of return on investment. How many new players would you > attract to the game, and would virtual cards sell as well in VTES as > they did in the case of Magic? The ability to play a game whenever you > want, 24/7, without leaving your home is a massive perk, after all. I dont think that Magic and Vtes are similar enough to try and port the magic online model over to vtes. Vtes takes 2-3 hours (more online ime) and requires 5 players capable of committing to that time, without dropping out mid game. Magic takes 15 minutes and requires two people, not the mention the points I make in my first paragraph re: playerbase sizes for vtes/magic. Thats makes for a much more viable investment in the case of Magic, but in the real world it just is not feasible for vtes. cheers, Anthony

On Jul 24, 11:40 am, Anthony Coleman <anthony.t.d.cole...@gmail.com> [ quoted text not captured ] > where this becomes a major problem. Even if you use this gentleman's software, you can be matched up with random people who may or may not be as savvy as you are with the rules. And that's a tiny sample of people. > I dont think that Magic and Vtes are similar enough to try and port > the magic online model over to vtes. Vtes takes 2-3 hours (more online > ime) and requires 5 players capable of committing to that time, > without dropping out mid game. Magic takes 15 minutes and requires two > people, not the mention the points I make in my first paragraph re: > playerbase sizes for vtes/magic. One of the biggest draws in Magic Online is the multiplayer. That's 3 to 6 players with about a dozen different variants including free for all, two headed giant, emperor, three headed giant, and champions all with Standard, Extended, and Open card pools. Games generally take between 60 and 150 minutes. As far as player base size, sure. Active player base. But there are tens of thousands of players who used to play 'back in the day', and there are hundreds of thousands of potential young players who have never even heard of the game. WW needs to do something big if it wants to reach those people.

Bill Ricardi wrote: > To have a (near) perfect judge IS possible, if the CCG's management > does what it is supposed to: Standardize wording on cards, and create > an Oracle-like database of every card's true wording. > > You just need quality software, and a high quality of CCG mechanics > driving the game. Given that VTES players were unwilling to spend FIVE DOLLARS A MONTH on playing-online, where do you propose alll this money come from? Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/

Bill Ricardi wrote: > Magic Online makes money hand over fist. > If your product is good, they will come. Magic made money hand-over-fist BEFORE Magic Online. That's why they were able to create Magic Online. VTES doesn't make that kind of money -- hell, NO ONE makes that kind of money -- to take the next step and produce a high-quality online game. [ quoted text not captured ]

Bill Ricardi schrieb: > As far as player base size, sure. Active player base. But there are > tens of thousands of players who used to play 'back in the day', and > there are hundreds of thousands of potential young players who have > never even heard of the game. WW needs to do something big if it wants > to reach those people. I think you are mis-judging the objectives of WW. I think they are running the product (happily) as a niche product that earns them some money. They do not want to go large-scale with V:TES, I guess the development of different games (computer/online) has precedence for them.

[ quoted text not captured ] There were several developers associated with the project, and many who would have been willing to attempt to take on the mantle, but no such opportunity was provided. Bug bugged out. He had been working on a pseudo-competing site (Ludoholic) for some time, and I think that he put at least a little more effort into that site; to the degree that he cared at all he probably didn't want to harm the new site's chances by allowing the old one to compete with it. The basic issue with anyone else taking over CCGWorkshop was always that it was written in Delphi, of all languages. Bug talked many times about porting or starting over in something else (Java?), but nothing ever came of it (at least on CCGW). I don't think anyone else ever worked on the 'gEngine' part of CCGW; the other devs mostly worked with the API and 'gML' (XML for specifying particular games). The end of CCGW really left a bad taste in many peoples' mouths. While VTES Online never really worked well, many of the other CCGs had found a fairly nice home there. (E.g. Mythos CCG is now completely dead without CCGW.) Alex

On Jul 24, 3:43 pm, Johannes Walch <johannes.wa...@vekn.de> wrote: > Bill Ricardi schrieb: > > > As far as player base size, sure. Active player base. But there are > > tens of thousands of players who used to play 'back in the day', and > > there are hundreds of thousands of potential young players who have > > never even heard of the game. WW needs to do something big if it wants > > to reach those people. > > I think you are mis-judging the objectives of WW. Note I said: "if it wants to reach those people." If it doesn't want to reach those people, then it doesn't have to do anything.

On Jul 24, 3:13 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > Bill Ricardi wrote: > > Magic Online makes money hand over fist. > > If your product is good, they will come. > > Magic made money hand-over-fist BEFORE Magic Online. That's > why they were able to create Magic Online. VTES doesn't make > that kind of money -- hell, NO ONE makes that kind of money -- > to take the next step and produce a high-quality online game. The number one rule in business: If you don't have what you need to make the deal, look for a partner. If they wanted to make it happen, they could offer a chunk of the online business to someone who wanted to invest. But as I mentioned, they have a long way to go before their product is in any shape to make an impact on the mass market. Wording needs to be standardized on both cards and matching wording within the rulebook, and an Oracle-like database needs to be created that is a central resource for all rules updates on a particular card. Until then, a serious online project isn't feasible.

[ quoted text not captured ] Mythos and Netrunner, among others, can be played via Lackey. http://www.lackeyccg.com/

Bill Ricardi wrote: > "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >> Bill Ricardi wrote: >>> Magic Online makes money hand over fist. >>> If your product is good, they will come. >> >> Magic made money hand-over-fist BEFORE Magic Online. That's >> why they were able to create Magic Online. VTES doesn't make >> that kind of money -- hell, NO ONE makes that kind of money -- >> to take the next step and produce a high-quality online game. > > The number one rule in business: If you don't have what you need to > make the deal, look for a partner. If they wanted to make it happen, > they could offer a chunk of the online business to someone who wanted > to invest. Invest in what? As I said before, no one was willing to pay even FIVE DOLLARS A MONTH to play in what was already there. Are you suggesting that someone somewhere has several hundred thousand dollars to invest in an online product for VTES? If you know of such money, please contact White Wolf immediately! [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jul 25, 12:44 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > Invest in what? As I said before, no one was willing to pay even > FIVE DOLLARS A MONTH to play in what was already there. What was already there was crap. It was next to useless. I wouldn't pay a dime for it, never mind 5 bucks. If the game automates nothing, if it doesn't enforce the rules, if it doesn't encourage the game to move along... it isn't a game. It's a collaborative white board system. On the other hand, if there was a VTES game as polished as MTGO Online, not only do I think people would pay for virtual packs, but I think it would attract thousands of new players. I know I would pay to get a game any time I want, playing with people all over the world, adjudicated by a perfect judge, with built in time controls. And if the changes that I've mentioned multiple times took place, they wouldn't need me to find an investor, they would have their choice. But the likelihood of those changes happening in the next two years are slim, so it doesn't matter. If WW doesn;t take their game seriously, nobody else in the business world will either.

Bill Ricardi wrote: > On Jul 24, 3:13 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >> Bill Ricardi wrote: >>> Magic Online makes money hand over fist. >>> If your product is good, they will come. >> Magic made money hand-over-fist BEFORE Magic Online. That's >> why they were able to create Magic Online. VTES doesn't make >> that kind of money -- hell, NO ONE makes that kind of money -- >> to take the next step and produce a high-quality online game. > > The number one rule in business: If you don't have what you need to > make the deal, look for a partner. I think that's what the gatling people were. And we see how that worked out. best - chris

Bill Ricardi wrote: > On Jul 24, 11:12 am, Anthony Coleman <anthony.t.d.cole...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> I'd >> also guess that for a game like V:tES (and likely Magic, its a long >> long time since I've played so I dont really know, can anyone comment >> on the relative complexities?) the amount of time, resource and money >> that would take is massive and for a small game like vtes utterly >> disproportionate to the benefit. > > It depends. Magic Online makes money hand over fist. If your product > is good, they will come. > JOL is free. >> Perhaps my experience of vtes and vtes players is different to yours >> but I dont every really have many rules disputes in my games and any >> that I do have are very very quickly sorted with quick searches. > > Now imagine being able to play with thousands of people that you don't > know, some better with the English language than others. That's what > can happen if you play a CCG online. If you just use it to play with > people you already know... well, you could have just met up with them > as normal. When you don't know the quality of player on the other end, > automated judges become much more important. > Already happening on JOL (except the thousands of people part). And like Ant said, ajudicated just fine by the players themselves. Fewer assholes in the VTES world compared to Magic (having owned a game store for 11 years, I know). Only problem with online VTES is that people tend to flake before the game ends. Happens with realtime games, happens with JOL-time games. >> Real world: no one is going to spend the resource required to create >> this piece of software for vtes as its a significant amount of coding >> to get it right and vtes is a small game. > > VTES has broken into the Scrye top 10 figures many times. Its small by > WOTC standards, but nearly everything is small by WOTC standards. It > is a question of return on investment. How many new players would you > attract to the game, and would virtual cards sell as well in VTES as > they did in the case of Magic? The ability to play a game whenever you > want, 24/7, without leaving your home is a massive perk, after all. Already happening on JOL (and Lackey too I hear). What JOL lacks is the graphical interface. What it does have is the ability to start a game in Real Time, and then finish it more slowly, as people check their games. You can always try out WTES on the Secret Library. http://www.secretlibrary.info/index.php The problem there is that there doesn't seem to be the critical mass of players that JOL has. In regards to JOL, if there was a way for admins to easily let other people take over for folks who flake out of games, I would probably pay $2-3/month for JOL. And maybe up to $5 if it was graphical (although I don't need that). And to address your concerns about updated text; JOL sources its text from the csv that LSJ has on the WW website: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/downloads/vtescsv.zip This is what LSJ updates - the single document you describe. Sure it's not pretty and pimpy like Oracle; but it's there. best - chris

On Jul 25, 6:24 am, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > Already happening on JOL (except the thousands of people part). And > like Ant said, ajudicated just fine by the players themselves. Fewer > assholes in the VTES world compared to Magic (having owned a game store > for 11 years, I know). Only problem with online VTES is that people > tend to flake before the game ends. Happens with realtime games, > happens with JOL-time games. ... the old JOL is play by E-mail. To quote from the website: "Once around the table takes from 1-2 weeks on average". If you tell new players that this is how your game is played online they'll laugh until they can't laugh any more. I stopped playing PBEM games 10 years ago, and I have no plans to go back. The new JOL (3) is Alpha, and if it ever evolves past the likes of Lackey or any of the other shared whiteboard solutions, that will be wonderful. But right now, its pretty much the same as a shared whiteboard. > What JOL lacks is the graphical interface. What it does have is the > ability to start a game in Real Time, and then finish it more slowly, as > people check their games. ...start a game in real time and finish it more slowly. Yeah that's the marketing cry that we've been missing. VTES: Not Slow Enough, But Now Finish More Slowly! > And to address your concerns about updated text; JOL sources its text > from the csv that LSJ has on the WW website: > > http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/downloads/vtescsv.zip > > This is what LSJ updates - the single document you describe. Sure it's > not pretty and pimpy like Oracle; but it's there. That has NOTHING to do with an Oracle solution. Card texts are not standardized. There's no cross referencing. This is just a list of cards and sets. This is what an Oracle like solution looks like: http://gatherer.wizards.com You can look up a card, get details on the printed version VS the Oracle version, all texts are standardized, and all rulings that would modify how the card works are detailed in the Oracle text, the Rulebook, or both. Without that, you cannot start to tackle the project coding a complex CCG. Every card would be an exception, the coders could never be sure of 'deisgner intent' with non standardized card text.

[ quoted text not captured ] Is this Andrew S. Davidson? :) I don't know who you are, but your statement of White Wolf not taking their game seriously is the statement of an uninformed idiot. LOLL!! :) [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Dude, I understand what you're getting at, but it will never fucking happen. Never. Ever. Magic has defined phases where things can be played, and it's effects are divided into Sorcery-speed effects, Instants, and Interrupts. Handling the stack and interrupts to it is complicated, but it is rigidly defined. It's the sort of thing that may even be easier to handle with a computer than a person. V:TES has some rigidly defined phases, but then every card is a timing issue unto itself, it's played "before range", or "when a vampire is going to torpor", or "when a bleed is about to be successful" or "after a bleed is a successful." If you broke it down into timing windows, you'd have a hundred of them. Or what about Andre Leroux who says "when a vampire you control successfully bleeds", and Lubomira says "when she successfully bleeds", but if Lubomira bleeds, Andre's ability can be used first, and if it is, Lubo's text doesn't happen? It's theoretically possible to outline all of the possible timing windows, but it will never happen. Not to mention that about once a week (or at least once a month), someone comes up with a question about an interaction that no one has thought of before (or at least hasn't asked), and the answer from LSJ doesn't always follow precedent.

On Jul 25, 3:46 pm, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: > On Jul 25, 5:06 am, Bill Ricardi <billrica...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 25, 6:24 am, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > > > That has NOTHING to do with an Oracle solution. Card texts are not > > standardized. There's no cross referencing. This is just a list of > > cards and sets. This is what an Oracle like solution looks like: > > >http://gatherer.wizards.com > > > You can look up a card, get details on the printed version VS the > > Oracle version, all texts are standardized, and all rulings that would > > modify how the card works are detailed in the Oracle text, the > > Rulebook, or both. > > > Without that, you cannot start to tackle the project coding a complex > > CCG. Every card would be an exception, the coders could never be sure > > of 'deisgner intent' with non standardized card text. > > Dude, I understand what you're getting at, but it will never fucking > happen. Never. Ever. > > Magic has defined phases where things can be played, and it's effects > are divided into Sorcery-speed effects, Instants, and Interrupts. And triggered effects, and sacrifice speed, and cost-pay speed, and state based effects. > Handling the stack and interrupts to it is complicated, but it is > rigidly defined. It's the sort of thing that may even be easier to > handle with a computer than a person. V:TES has some rigidly defined > phases, but then every card is a timing issue unto itself, it's played > "before range", or "when a vampire is going to torpor", or "when a > bleed is about to be successful" or "after a bleed is a successful." All of which can be handled with flagged triggers. > If you broke it down into timing windows, you'd have a hundred of > them. Or what about Andre Leroux who says "when a vampire you control > successfully bleeds", and Lubomira says "when she successfully > bleeds", but if Lubomira bleeds, Andre's ability can be used first, > and if it is, Lubo's text doesn't happen? It's theoretically possible > to outline all of the possible timing windows, but it will never > happen. It is easily done, if you look at MTGO. They perfectly execute timing chains that are not only more complex than what you've outlined, but are literally impossible in VTES. Because Magic is interruptible FILO resolution, and VTES is just plain FILO once a chain has been passed on. The windows themselves aren't what gets defined. Cards are set up to 'watch' for their triggers, and other cards generate those triggers. MTGO has to watch for ridiculously precise state based effects and order them properly, or even know when to offer the option of stacking state based effects by priority or controllers in some cases. And it does so, flawlessly for the most part. There are bugs, but they get rapidly ironed out unless they're low priority. > > Not to mention that about once a week (or at least once a month), > someone comes up with a question about an interaction that no one has > thought of before (or at least hasn't asked), and the answer from LSJ > doesn't always follow precedent. Which is why the game needs standardized wording on cards that meshes with standardized rulings in the rule book. Once the building blocks of the game are established, all of the interactions are handled automatically by the engine. This eliminates the old 'designer intent' BS, and forces the designers to think about what they really want a card to do BEFORE they release it. If they do get it wrong, they issue official errata and card behavior is reprogrammed in the engine. Before anyone says that's impossible, or that VTES rules and timing are more complex, I invite you to read about the ridiculous complexity of Magic's state-based effects: http://www.wizards.com/magic/comprules/MagicCompRules_20090708.txt Note that the comprehensive Magic rulebook is nearly 500K of TEXT. Not a Word doc, not a markup language, half a meg of TEXT. That doesn't even include general floor rules and judging guidelines, etc etc. Nuff said.

Bill Ricardi <billr...@googlemail.com> writes: [ quoted text not captured ] Nobody is saying it's *impossible*, just that it's probably not worth the effort: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_matter_of_programming Armchair quarterbacking is incredibly easy. It's laughably effortless to talk the talk, while implying that someone else should walk the walk. HG

Bill Ricardi <billr...@googlemail.com> wrote: >Which is why the game needs standardized wording on cards that meshes >with standardized rulings in the rule book. Once the building blocks >of the game are established, all of the interactions are handled >automatically by the engine. This eliminates the old 'designer intent' >BS, and forces the designers to think about what they really want a >card to do BEFORE they release it. Alternatively, this restricts the designers from designing the cards they want to design, in favour of being forced to fit a computer program's needs. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

On Jul 25, 5:18 pm, h...@iki.fi (Janne Hägglund) wrote: > Armchair quarterbacking is incredibly easy. It's laughably effortless to > talk the talk, while implying that someone else should walk the walk. But the walk has already been walked, now its just following in someone else's footsteps.

On Jul 25, 5:16 pm, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > Bill Ricardi <billrica...@googlemail.com> wrote: > >Which is why the game needs standardized wording on cards that meshes > >with standardized rulings in the rule book. Once the building blocks > >of the game are established, all of the interactions are handled > >automatically by the engine. This eliminates the old 'designer intent' > >BS, and forces the designers to think about what they really want a > >card to do BEFORE they release it. > > Alternatively, this restricts the designers from designing the cards > they want to design, in favour of being forced to fit a computer > program's needs. It shouldn't, unless your coders are really, really bad.

[ quoted text not captured ] Yes, because the coders will be able to foresee all possible future designed cards and will create an infinitely flexible framework that will automatically handle all possible future cards. At no point will it ever be necessary to re-architect something (costing time and money) because of problems that simply couldn't be foreseen. Working, as I do, for a company with a reputation in its sector for producing kick-ass software products, I can tell you that you are wrong. Products do have to be redeveloped and redesigned to allow for future developments, and this costs time and money. Even if your programmers are very, very good. When a designer can be told "Please don't print that card, it will cost us X man months to implement a new framework for it", that will often win out. [ quoted text not captured ]

Bill Ricardi <billr...@googlemail.com> wrote: >On Jul 25, 5:18�pm, h...@iki.fi (Janne H�gglund) wrote: >> Armchair quarterbacking is incredibly easy. �It's laughably effortless to >> talk the talk, while implying that someone else should walk the walk. > >But the walk has already been walked, now its just following in >someone else's footsteps. It's really not. V:TES Online's attempts at automating V:TES were utterly terrible. Even when V:TES Online was available, people often used other systems - JOL, wTES etc. - because V:TES Online was so bad. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jul 25, 6:03 pm, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > Yes, because the coders will be able to foresee all possible future > designed cards and will create an infinitely flexible framework that > will automatically handle all possible future cards. At no point will > it ever be necessary to re-architect something (costing time and money) > because of problems that simply couldn't be foreseen. I never said that. What I did say is that your scenario of 'now we have to limit what the cards can do' implies that you have really, really bad coders who aren't willing to re-architect something, and who created a product that didn't gnerate the time and money needed for said retooling in the first place. > Working, as I do, for a company with a reputation in its sector for > producing kick-ass software products, I can tell you that you are wrong. > Products do have to be redeveloped and redesigned to allow for future > developments, and this costs time and money. Even if your programmers > are very, very good. I never said they didn't need to be redeveloped and redesigned for new sets. In fact, MTGO is on 3.0 and is looking at 4.0. Nothing you said changed what I said. You're now bringing money and time into the picture. Yes, we all know that changes to the paper game will require the online version to be retooled. But look at the massive changes coming with Magic 2010. All those rules changes, including the basic way combat damage works, mana burn, etc, are being worked into Magic 3.0. Did it cost time and money? Of course. But they're doing it. What I said is that if your software designers prevent you from developing the game as you will because they claim something 'can't be done', they're very, very bad. They're passing up a bunch of money to retool a product, because they either fear failure or they're lazy. Oh by the way. Former lead A-bug tester for Namco, including standards for Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft. Former lead sysadmin for what became the leading version control platform in the world. Former consultant to the games industry, and published author in Scrye, Inquest, Bluff, and various others. I appreciate your qualifications, but I'm entitled to my opinions.

> Oh by the way. Former lead A-bug tester for Namco, including standards > for Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft. Former lead sysadmin for what > became the leading version control platform in the world. Former > consultant to the games industry, and published author in Scrye, > Inquest, Bluff, and various others. I appreciate your qualifications, > but I'm entitled to my opinions. Damn, that's impressive. Why don't you just write it?

[ quoted text not captured ] ... I did mention that that little problem of WW having to do a metric crapload of stuff before anyone would touch the project with a 10 meter cattleprod, right? And I don't program, I have people for that. :)

Bill Ricardi <billr...@googlemail.com> wrote: >Nothing you said changed what I said. You're now bringing money and >time into the picture. Dude, money and time were already in the picture, front and centre. The fact that developing and maintaining this would cost a small fortune was something people were already telling you. If it's only just come into the picture for you, re-adjust your set. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Can you enumerate what they need to do, Item by item? > And I don't program, I have people for that. :) So you are rich? Why don't you put up the money to do this?

[ quoted text not captured ] I don't think you can define how much money is out there in relation to how much it would cost. Can you? First of all, Magic at all phases of its existence probably made at least 100x (probably low actually) what VTES/Jyhad has made. Even at Jyhad's inception. That gives you the budget to design MTGO. I don't think the budget is there for VTESO - it wasn't before, I don't see why it would be there now. Even for CCP. On a different note, can you answer how MTGO handles a player dropping out of a game? Or alternatively, how does it handle one person saying - "I have to go to work for 9 hours, let's continue this game when I get back." Or, how would you suggest an online version of VTES should handle this situation, considering now you have to coordinate getting 4 other people back to the table. Don't you think "playing by e-mail" is the best way to handle this situation? The playing by e-mail aspect of JOL is the *best* thing about it for me. I rarely have 3+ hours in a row to devote to playing an online game (if I did, I'd play real-live VTES). But with JOL, I can check back when convenient for me throughout the day. Only WTES seems to have that capability. best- chris

On Jul 25, 9:04 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > On Jul 25, 2:34 pm, Bill Ricardi <billrica...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 25, 8:06 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > > > > Oh by the way. Former lead A-bug tester for Namco, including standards > > > > for Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft. Former lead sysadmin for what > > > > became the leading version control platform in the world. Former > > > > consultant to the games industry, and published author in Scrye, > > > > Inquest, Bluff, and various others. I appreciate your qualifications, > > > > but I'm entitled to my opinions. > > > > Damn, that's impressive. > > > > Why don't you just write it? > > > ... I did mention that that little problem of WW having to do a metric > > crapload of stuff before anyone would touch the project with a 10 > > meter cattleprod, right? > > Can you enumerate what they need to do, Item by item? I already did. Scroll up. > > And I don't program, I have people for that. :) > > So you are rich? Nobody who owns a startup company is rich, just hopeful. > Why don't you put up the money to do this? This seems to be going in circles, with the whole 'They need to do a lot of things first' not sinking in.

On Jul 25, 9:26 pm, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > I don't think you can define how much money is out there in relation to > how much it would cost. Can you? How much money is out there? Are you talking VC? Angel funding? Nobody would touch it with the state the game is in right now. > That gives you the budget to design MTGO. I don't think the budget is > there for VTESO - it wasn't before, I don't see why it would be there > now. Even for CCP. Simply put, everyone is looking for the next big thing in multiplayer online games. You don't necessarily need a premier brand name to do that. Its simply a matter of what you're buying into. > On a different note, can you answer how MTGO handles a player dropping > out of a game? They go under the timer. When they run out of tie, they auto-resign. I'm not sure why you ask that, since you can design it however you wish. > Or alternatively, how does it handle one person saying - > "I have to go to work for 9 hours, let's continue this game when I get > back." The game can be suspended by majority vote, to be resumed when all players are available in the next couple of months. > Or, how would you suggest an online version of VTES should handle this > situation, considering now you have to coordinate getting 4 other people > back to the table. I think majority vote suspending the game until everyone can get back together is fine. > Don't you think "playing by e-mail" is the best way > to handle this situation? Umm. No. Hell no. Never. I'll play live over E-mail any day. > The playing by e-mail aspect of JOL is the *best* thing about it for me. > I rarely have 3+ hours in a row to devote to playing an online game > (if I did, I'd play real-live VTES). But with JOL, I can check back > when convenient for me throughout the day. Only WTES seems to have that > capability. I'm sure JOL will always be there for you. Well, I'm not sure, but I hope so for your sake. I can play, for example, Magic Online while I work. When its my turn, it beeps and I make my move or reaction or what have you. Then I go back to working. When I'm done with work, I can get a multiplayer game in and do some chatting too.

On Jul 25, 3:42 pm, Bill Ricardi <billrica...@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Jul 25, 9:04 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 25, 2:34 pm, Bill Ricardi <billrica...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 25, 8:06 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > > > > > Oh by the way. Former lead A-bug tester for Namco, including standards > > > > > for Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft. Former lead sysadmin for what > > > > > became the leading version control platform in the world. Former > > > > > consultant to the games industry, and published author in Scrye, > > > > > Inquest, Bluff, and various others. I appreciate your qualifications, > > > > > but I'm entitled to my opinions. > > > > > Damn, that's impressive. > > > > > Why don't you just write it? > > > > ... I did mention that that little problem of WW having to do a metric > > > crapload of stuff before anyone would touch the project with a 10 > > > meter cattleprod, right? > > > Can you enumerate what they need to do, Item by item? > > I already did. Scroll up. Can you do it again, Here, so that we can all see exactly what is needed. You keep mentioning "that other game" which just makes people see red. > > > And I don't program, I have people for that. :) > > > So you are rich? > > Nobody who owns a startup company is rich, just hopeful. > > > Why don't you put up the money to do this? > > This seems to be going in circles, with the whole 'They need to do a > lot of things first' not sinking in. It just sounds like "If you had a million dollars to waste...."

On Jul 25, 11:29 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > Can you do it again, Here, so that we can all see exactly what is > needed. You keep mentioning "that other game" which just makes people > see red. Right. I won't use the M-word in this post. :) VTES cannot be fully automated with a fully competent electronic judge until a few things happen. These are simple changes, but given how long the game has been around they are quite time consuming: A) Every card must be reviewed to standardize the wording that is used, and that revision of exact game-text must be available online. Any time two cards have the exact same effect, they should use the exact same wording. If the effect, due to intent or ruling, is slightly different than other effects, then that slightly different effect needs its own unique wording. B) Likewise the rulebook must define what standard terms mean using the exact same terminology as is used on the (now) standardized cards. The rule book must explain the exact mechanics of the game on a turn by turn basis, including the windows of timing at every stage, when transient and permanent effects 'check' for states, and the like. Any rulings on how cards work must be based in the factual mechanics of rules as stated in the rule book. Any 'designer intent' can be achieved with the correct wording of the card, rather than individual card bias, and that wording will be reflected in the database mentioned in A above. C) New sets, mechanics, and rulings will be reflected in the above database A and rulebook B as soon as they are tournament legal. Those things might take years. But they are not only an important prerequisite to automating a judge (and thus streamlining online play to an amazing degree, probably making it faster than face to face play, as has been seen in other multiplayer variants of electronic CCGs), but they would be amazing boons to those running events, playtesting new sets, and serious tournament players.

Bill Ricardi wrote: > On Jul 25, 9:26 pm, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > >> I don't think you can define how much money is out there in relation to >> how much it would cost. Can you? > > How much money is out there? Are you talking VC? Angel funding? Nobody > would touch it with the state the game is in right now. > Actually, I was responding to your comment that essentially said "there is money out there" I assumed you meant customers who were willing to pay. Whenever you start a business, you have to have some idea of what your sales are going to be. A place to start is to compare market share of VTES to MTG; and assume a VTESO will make a similar percentage compared to MTGO. I guess you can use other metrics, but that seems to be the place to start, regardless of any other factors. So, I'm saying that there isn't much market share for a VTESO compared to MTGO, that would justify the costs of developing; even if all the things you think should be fixed already were. >> That gives you the budget to design MTGO. I don't think the budget is >> there for VTESO - it wasn't before, I don't see why it would be there >> now. Even for CCP. > > Simply put, everyone is looking for the next big thing in multiplayer > online games. You don't necessarily need a premier brand name to do > that. Its simply a matter of what you're buying into. > What does that last sentence mean? It's unclear to me. Who is "you"? Me the player? Me the investor? Me the owner of the CCP corporation? Regardless, MTGO was developed I assume on profits from the MTG paper based game. I don't think VTES has the amount of profits to justify the development you envision. Regardless of brand name. >> On a different note, can you answer how MTGO handles a player dropping >> out of a game? > > They go under the timer. When they run out of tie, they auto-resign. > I'm not sure why you ask that, since you can design it however you > wish. What does "run out of tie" mean? Do you mean "run out of time?" A timer per player doesn't work in VTES, at least in Real Life, since players take different time per turn, per action etc. I'm not a designer - how would you design it? Basically, I'd hate to start a game, invest 1-2 hours of my time into it; and then have it end without resolving the game. Even if I got a VP out of it (ok, maybe I'd be ok with getting a VP out of it). And speaking of which, that's a big discussion point right now in regards to players dropping, and I don't think that's resolved, even for RL tournaments. Ie, players dropping in mid game screws things up for everyone around the table. > >> Or alternatively, how does it handle one person saying - >> "I have to go to work for 9 hours, let's continue this game when I get >> back." > > The game can be suspended by majority vote, to be resumed when all > players are available in the next couple of months. What if that won't happen. Isn't that the same result as playing in JOL-time? But just clumped together? > >> Or, how would you suggest an online version of VTES should handle this >> situation, considering now you have to coordinate getting 4 other people >> back to the table. > > I think majority vote suspending the game until everyone can get back > together is fine. > You can agree to do this now with JOL. *But*, you can also decide to continue to play slowly but surely in JOL-time. Better, don't you think - because you have options? >> Don't you think "playing by e-mail" is the best way >> to handle this situation? > > Umm. No. Hell no. Never. I'll play live over E-mail any day. But what if you can't play live, and you don't get back to that game, ever. Again, I'd hate to start a game, invest 1-2 hours of my time into it; and then have it end without resolving the game. The choice you seem to be making is: play live, or not play at all. Is that your preference? For me, it's play in JOL-time *or* play live *or* not play at all. I appreciate that I can play either in JOL-time or live. > >> The playing by e-mail aspect of JOL is the *best* thing about it for me. >> I rarely have 3+ hours in a row to devote to playing an online game >> (if I did, I'd play real-live VTES). But with JOL, I can check back >> when convenient for me throughout the day. Only WTES seems to have that >> capability. > > I'm sure JOL will always be there for you. Well, I'm not sure, but I > hope so for your sake. Your condescension is palpable. Why? I can play, for example, Magic Online while I > work. When its my turn, it beeps and I make my move or reaction or > what have you. Then I go back to working. When I'm done with work, I > can get a multiplayer game in and do some chatting too. But I'm not always at my desk. And according to you, if I don't respond in enough time, I lose. Seems like there are two camps here - those who can hang with JOL-time games, and those who don't like to play that way. Fine. But since JOL can play RealTime, but MTGO (and your desired version of VTESO) can't play JOL-Time, seems like JOL is a better solution. Don't you think? best - chris PS, as I finished writing this, I realized that I have never played an MMORPG. Perhaps that is why I can hang with JOL - I haven't been "spoiled" by an excellent real-time environment like Warcraft or EQ or EVE or whatever. I might sing the same tune as you if I came from the experience of playing those games - JOL-time might be too slow and annoying.

[ quoted text not captured ] Thanks for that list. I wonder if that would take years. Seems pretty doable, and desirable even from a non-online player point of view. But since I am unwilling to do that job, I'll just continue to enjoy the game as it is... best - chris

[ quoted text not captured ] A 500K rulebook written in formal and well defined language is cool for a computer but a major PITA for a human player. MTG's current rules are a convoluted nightmare and I'm glad that the V:TES design team chose to stick with natural language and arbitration as necessary. Of course, there's no reason to make the process visible. If you truly can standardize the rules without affecting functionality or restricting card design (of which I'm not actually so sure about) you should also be able to give the standardized rules to the programmers and show the old rules and card text to the users.

On Jul 26, 12:10 am, Bill Ricardi <billrica...@googlemail.com> wrote: > A) Every card must be reviewed to standardize the wording that is > used It was pointed out to me that I should give an example of this. And its both mundane and amusing. If you open up the official card list CSV, on the very first page you find Abactor! Abactor - +1 stealth hunt action. Gain 5 blood. After successful resolution, a referendum is called to call a blood hunt on this vampire (independent of the action, just as if he or she had committed diablerie). This should establish that every card that is an action that has a minion go hunting is a 'hunt action' right? Wrong! Hospital Food - Master: unique location. Requires a ready anarch. Tap when an anarch announces a hunting action. If that action is successful, the anarch gains an additional blood. HuntING action?! Where is that ING coming from? Is a hunt action a hunting action? Why did that wording change? But wait... Strained Vitae Supply - Master. Put this card in play. Vampires do not get the normal +1 stealth when hunting. Any Methuselah may use a master phase action to put 1 blood counter on this card from his or her pool. If the number of counters on this card equals or exceeds the number of Methuselahs in the game, burn this card. When hunting?! That should be when performing a hunt action, right? Or is that a huntING action? Or is 'hunting' JUST the process that happens DURING a hunting action... or hunt action. Or is 'hunting' even the attempt to hunt before the process even starts, even if it is canceled, DI'ed, etc? Oh god, look at this... Tainted Vitae - Only usable when a vampire controlled by your predator successfully hunts. That vampire gains 2 additional blood. Put this card on that vampire. You still control this card. {Bleed actions directed at you cost} the vampire an additional blood. HUNTS?! Is that the result of a successful hunt action... huntING action... WHATEVER? No, it can't be, there would be no reason to say 'predator successfully hunts'. So hunts means 'performs a hunt action' whether or not its successful, right? Wait, if that's the case, why don't ALL the cards use the much shorter 'hunts' or 'hunt'?! I mean its referenced in... Songs of Distant Vitae - +1 stealth action. [qui] (D) Choose a vampire who has committed diablerie since your last turn. That vampire goes to torpor and burns 2 blood. [QUI] (D) Bleed. This action gets +1 bleed when bleeding the controller of any vampire who successfully hunted since your last turn. See, they HUNTED... new term. No, no... just the past tense of HUNTS right? Or Performs a Hunt Action? Or Performs a huntING action? This is a minor wording issue. Very minor. And yet I spotted it in 3 seconds, on the 6th entry of a multi-thousand card list... and my little tirade doesn't address Crypt cards at all, which have the same massive span of terms for one simple concept. It doesn't cover the rulebook either. So you can imagine what it takes to put every term in the game right, and make mass standardizations over the entire game. Now you have some idea what the scope of this sort of project is. But without standardization, triggers, flags, and rulings can be EASILY missed when coding. And easily missed when a human is judging for that matter, and searching for terms in a database or rule book or list of recent rulings or what have you.

On Jul 26, 12:42 am, suoli <suoliruse...@gmail.com> wrote: > Of course, there's no reason to make the process visible. If you truly > can standardize the rules without affecting functionality or > restricting card design (of which I'm not actually so sure about) you > should also be able to give the standardized rules to the programmers > and show the old rules and card text to the users. Easily done. You present the 'standard' rule book that covers most of the concepts and timing, and that goes included with the starter products. And you make the 'full' rule book available online, and include a printout with the periodic promo card shipments to princes. They'll know who might want a copy, or just keep it in their travel bags if it is needed for adjudicating during a tourney.

On 26 heinä, 02:39, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > Seems like there are two camps here - those who can hang with JOL-time > games, and those who don't like to play that way. Fine. But since JOL > can play RealTime, but MTGO (and your desired version of VTESO) can't > play JOL-Time, seems like JOL is a better solution. Don't you think? I imagine you could include optional play-by-mail to keep both camps happy.

[ quoted text not captured ] Even better, you could include an 'offline game manager' that would show you in a flash the exact position of the game. Then you make your move, and it forwards you on to the next game that you have a move due in, etc etc. All the benefits of a graphical interface, and a judge to prevent you from making illegal moves that would waste time, but with no need to be on simultaneously with the other players.

[ quoted text not captured ] I'm not sure that a translation of the rulebook that attempts to be 100% internally consistent would be more practical or useful to a judge than the current rulebook and a list of clarifications and errata.

On Jul 26, 1:42 am, suoli <suoliruse...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm not sure that a translation of the rulebook that attempts to be > 100% internally consistent would be more practical or useful to a > judge than the current rulebook and a list of clarifications and > errata. It should be. Instead of searching out 3 different versions of the same term, they can always search for the same term. Instead of looking up all sorts of rulings on timing, they could just look in the timing section. Etc.

[ quoted text not captured ] What I'm saying is that the complexity of a system that tries to be internally consistent and perfectly replicate the functionality of an inconsistent system could be so high that it would be impractical. For example, I could call you Bill, or, to avoid ambiguity, I could call you Cluster of Elementary Particles q,w,e,r,t,....p Occupying Space- time Coordinates(X,Y,Z,T). The latter naming system is less ambiguous and the former is less impractical.

Bill Ricardi <billr...@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Jul 26, 12:10�am, Bill Ricardi <billrica...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > A) Every card must be reviewed to standardize the wording that is > > used > It was pointed out to me that I should give an example of this. And > its both mundane and amusing. [stuff about hunting having inconsistent wording] That's a simple and obvious fix. Now try something hard, like Seeds of Corruption, which would require special-case analysis of every single vampire, defining "what is a special ability and what is not?" (Pop quiz: Do you know how Uriah Winter's text interacts with Seeds of Corruption?) ...or Madness of the Bard. Have a nice time coding that. JOL supports this card just fine!

Have another good free CCG engine called OCTGON (www.octgn.org), this program have way to add specific commands to each card. But unfurtanally I can't find in any place how to create a plugin to play VTES over that program... Than some people in OCTGN comunity say to me search for OCTGN2, this is the next-gen of OCTGN program totally rewrited based on .NET Framework language. Following tutorials over foruns I've ported the Lackey VTES plugin to OCTGN2. The program is amazing, easy to install, run and play but is very hard to compile plugin updates and have too many resources due your initial development state. If you wanna test VTES in OCTGN2 go to www.octgn.net and install the program (to install it you need .NET Framework 3.5 SP1 installed in your system or ClickOne plugin for Firefox users). Than you need download VTES plugin from Filebeam (www.filebeam.com) and search for this string [OCTGN2] the results will show all CCG plugins for OCTGN2. Download the 2 files named [octgn2]vtes-v0.0.1partX (or other game if you like), unpack the two files with Winrar and go back to OCTGN2 program. In main program windows click on "Manage Installed Games", "Install a New Game", and Browse for unpacked file [OCTGN2]VtES- v0.0.1.o8g (this install the game on OCTGN2), than click on Vampire the Eternal Struggle, "Install New Cards" and browse to a unpacked file [OCTGN2]VtES-v0.0.1.o8s (this will install VTES card imagens on OCTGN2). Now you can build your decks and start matchs... Remember I only do that port to test OCTGN2 program and I don't make adjustments, improvements, filters or lauch new expasions for that (but expasions until KoT is avaible to play) due limitations of program at this development state. If someone want to learn how to manage games on OCTGN2 and want to improve VTES on him please let me know. Jods (OCTGN2 developer) is a very flexible person and is improve the program every week very different from the Trevor (LackeyCCG developer) that only lauch 2 or 3 updates for years and don't like hear sugestions or bug reports. Talking about LackeyCCG, I play it 3 or 4 times every day before sleep, sometimes we play until 6PM. the problem with Lackey is the main server, one year ago the server start crash every time (and still crash sometimes today), due that players prefer to play hosting his games over IP.This is good due the chances of program crashs is very low compared with the games played in main server, but is very bad becouse the number of players is very few and raise very slow. Other problem of Lackey is the few number of resources and automation, I already suggested the author to add a lot of functionalities but he always say that want Lackey will to be more manual as possible, this reflect the real games matchs that everything is made manual according to him. I try to make VTES LackeyCCG plugin at best I can but if someone have suggestions to improve it or wanna help please let me know. LackeyCCG VTES plugin page www.lackeyccg.com/vtes Fernando Cesar - Sydnelson LackeyCCG VtES Plugin Maintainer

On Jul 26, 3:18 am, Jozxyqk <jfeue...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote: > Bill Ricardi <billrica...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > On Jul 26, 12:10 am, Bill Ricardi <billrica...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > A) Every card must be reviewed to standardize the wording that is > > > used > > It was pointed out to me that I should give an example of this. And > > its both mundane and amusing. > > [stuff about hunting having inconsistent wording] > > That's a simple and obvious fix. > > Now try something hard, like Seeds of Corruption, which would require > special-case analysis of every single vampire, defining "what is a > special ability and what is not?" (Pop quiz: Do you know how Uriah > Winter's text interacts with Seeds of Corruption?) The good news is, once you've gone through every vampire in the game and flagged their 'special ability' fields, you open the door for all sorts of effects, including special ability blanking, cloning, and theft. Some of which are already in the game, for example in the form of Merged Maria Stone (you can't just have the game give her +1 strength, in case there is ever a card that triggers off of all vampires with - strength. You have to remove the - strength to avoid false triggers.) for example. Other cards that remove special abilities (and not only on Vampires) include Midget, Stanislava, Trainer, etc. Also opens up a lot of design options in the future. So well worth doing. > ...or Madness of the Bard. Have a nice time coding that. JOL supports > this card just fine! Unique Master. Put this card in play. All players in the game must speak in rhyming sentences. If a player speaks without rhyming, he or she burns 1 pool. Any minion may burn this card as a (D) action. {{{Added to the V:EKN banned list in 1997.}}} As you can see, this was added to the V:EKN banned list in 1997. Banned cards do not need to be coded. And JOL doesn't support it just fine, since you can type whatever you want, as typing is not speaking. If you DID want to equate typing to speaking, JOL STILL doesn't support it, unless you have someone who understands the pronunciation of every language in the world, since Madness of the Bard doesn't require you to 'speak' English. To properly enforce the card you would need to require voice chat... does JOL have a built in feature that enables voice chat and disables text based chat during a game? No, sadly, it doesn't.

Bill Ricardi <billr...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Unique Master. > Put this card in play. All players in the game must speak in rhyming > sentences. If a player speaks without rhyming, he or she burns 1 pool. > Any minion may burn this card as a (D) action. {{{Added to the V:EKN > banned list in 1997.}}} > As you can see, this was added to the V:EKN banned list in 1997. > Banned cards do not need to be coded. Wrong. The card was banned from _Tournament_ Play. But is still legal to play in casual environments. All cards are legal in casual environments, even the ones that talk about ante (if all players agree to use that old mechanic). Of course MotB was the extreme example, though. If you look at the handful of threads where LSJ makes a REVERSAL of his own answer in the same thread, you'll see how difficult it is to handle all possible card interactions programmatically. Technically impossible? _Maybe_ not, although extremely difficult. Effectively impossible given the cost:benefit ratio? Absolutely yes.

On Jul 26, 11:49 am, Jozxyqk <jfeue...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote: > Bill Ricardi <billrica...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > Unique Master. > > Put this card in play. All players in the game must speak in rhyming > > sentences. If a player speaks without rhyming, he or she burns 1 pool. > > Any minion may burn this card as a (D) action. {{{Added to the V:EKN > > banned list in 1997.}}} > > As you can see, this was added to the V:EKN banned list in 1997. > > Banned cards do not need to be coded. > > Wrong. The card was banned from _Tournament_ Play. But is still legal > to play in casual environments. All cards are legal in casual environments, > even the ones that talk about ante (if all players agree to use that old > mechanic). I'm sorry, how does your statement make me 'wrong'? It WAS added to the banned list. And banned cards STILL do not need to be coded. Your statement, as true as it may or may not be, doesn't make me wrong. It is interesting trivia, but not trivia I particularly would focus on. > If you look at the handful of threads where LSJ makes a REVERSAL of his > own answer in the same thread, you'll see how difficult it is to handle > all possible card interactions programmatically. If it was easy, someone would have done it overnight. I did project that it would take years, didn't I? > Technically impossible? _Maybe_ not, although extremely difficult. > Effectively impossible given the cost:benefit ratio? Absolutely yes. Please show me your estimated cost to benefit ratio. Because I don't think you've done the market research.

Bill Ricardi <billr...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > Wrong. �The card was banned from _Tournament_ Play. �But is still legal > > to play in casual environments. �All cards are legal in casual environments, > > even the ones that talk about ante (if all players agree to use that old > > mechanic). > I'm sorry, how does your statement make me 'wrong'? It WAS added to > the banned list. And banned cards STILL do not need to be coded. Your > statement, as true as it may or may not be, doesn't make me wrong. It > is interesting trivia, but not trivia I particularly would focus on. Because the "banned list" in VTES only applies to tournaments. In casual play -- and what is more casual than online vtes? -- all cards should be supported, in an ideal world. > > If you look at the handful of threads where LSJ makes a REVERSAL of his > > own answer in the same thread, you'll see how difficult it is to handle > > all possible card interactions programmatically. > If it was easy, someone would have done it overnight. I did project > that it would take years, didn't I? Also, was it mentioned anywhere in this thread that the ONE person responsible for all the final rules decisions in this game isn't even a full employee of White Wolf? LSJ does this work as a contractor. And has another real job. No way does he have the time for this. > > Technically impossible? _Maybe_ not, although extremely difficult. > > Effectively impossible given the cost:benefit ratio? Absolutely yes. > Please show me your estimated cost to benefit ratio. Because I don't > think you've done the market research. Here's my market research: Estimated cost: any amount of money. Estimated benefit: Not as much money as that.

On Jul 26, 12:12 pm, Jozxyqk <jfeue...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote: > > I'm sorry, how does your statement make me 'wrong'? It WAS added to > > the banned list. And banned cards STILL do not need to be coded. Your > > statement, as true as it may or may not be, doesn't make me wrong. It > > is interesting trivia, but not trivia I particularly would focus on. > > Because the "banned list" in VTES only applies to tournaments. > In casual play -- and what is more casual than online vtes? -- all cards > should be supported, in an ideal world. For reasons ranging from fairness, to practicality, to legality, banned cards wouldn't be supported online. Well, if it were up to me, who knows what another company would do. > Here's my market research: > > Estimated cost: any amount of money. > Estimated benefit: Not as much money as that. Back to your bridge.

Bill Ricardi <billr...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > Because the "banned list" in VTES only applies to tournaments. > > In casual play -- and what is more casual than online vtes? -- all cards > > should be supported, in an ideal world. > For reasons ranging from fairness, to practicality, to legality, > banned cards wouldn't be supported online. Well, if it were up to me, > who knows what another company would do. Then you don't understand the difference between V:TES and the V:EKN. There are no banned cards in V:TES. This discussion is really silly. I can't say I've read the _whole_ thread, but most of the responses I've seen, from active, good, knowledgeable players, are arguing against your idea of an online system that "knows" the rules. Doesn't that tell you something about the community's wishes? > Back to your bridge. I'm not a troll, I'm a werewolf. http://www.monocleofclarity.com/ossian.jpg

On Jul 26, 12:31 pm, Jozxyqk <jfeue...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote: > Bill Ricardi <billrica...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > Because the "banned list" in VTES only applies to tournaments. > > > In casual play -- and what is more casual than online vtes? -- all cards > > > should be supported, in an ideal world. > > For reasons ranging from fairness, to practicality, to legality, > > banned cards wouldn't be supported online. Well, if it were up to me, > > who knows what another company would do. > > Then you don't understand the difference between V:TES and the V:EKN. > There are no banned cards in V:TES. I understand perfectly. But you clearly did no market research at all, and you didn't read my reasons carefully, because there are LEGAL reasons not to code some of the banned cards. Assuming you want the product to be legal in the United States and you plan to charge for the service at all. There are fairness reasons involved in not coding certain cards, but that's subjective, YMMV. > This discussion is really silly. I can't say I've read the _whole_ thread, > but most of the responses I've seen, from active, good, knowledgeable players, > are arguing against your idea of an online system that "knows" the rules. > Doesn't that tell you something about the community's wishes? No that tells me you haven't read the whole thread though, which is helpful in understanding your viewpoint. And those players weren't against HAVING an online judge, they just didn't know it was POSSIBLE. After I explained how to make it possible, you'll notice that not very many people were 'against' it.

On Jul 26, 7:46 am, Bill Ricardi <billrica...@googlemail.com> wrote: > And those players weren't > against HAVING an online judge, they just didn't know it was POSSIBLE. > After I explained how to make it possible, you'll notice that not very > many people were 'against' it. Or they simply stopped replying to you after you demonstrated your ignorance, which isn't at all the same thing. Also, your implication that Josh is a troll was hilarious. Thank you. John Eno

On Jul 27, 6:29 am, Johann von Doom <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote: > Or they simply stopped replying to you after you demonstrated your > ignorance, which isn't at all the same thing. Or I covered every topic that came up fully, including examples. It's funny, when you actually start using facts and you prove your point without resorting to to insults, people come around. I would LOVE to see examples of my 'ignorance' by the way. Please, enlighten me oh wise one!

[ quoted text not captured ] I don't even understand what your point is. Sure, it's theoretically possible, and in theory, practice and theory are the same. In practice, though, they are much different. =P It will never, ever happen. I think that people aren't arguing with you anymore because no one understands the point of of this portion of the thread. I can't necessarily speak for everyone, but when I say it's impossible for there to be a computerized judge for V:TES, I am speaking of the current world that we live in, and not a fantasy world where someone will devote the thousands of man-hours (and unknown quantities of cash) necessary to make it even remotely possible. You say that if we did live in that fantasy world, then it would be possible. Sure, but what's the point?

On Jul 27, 1:27 pm, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: > On Jul 27, 6:56 am, Bill Ricardi <billrica...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 27, 6:29 am, Johann von Doom <invisibleking...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > Or they simply stopped replying to you after you demonstrated your > > > ignorance, which isn't at all the same thing. > > > Or I covered every topic that came up fully, including examples. It's > > funny, when you actually start using facts and you prove your point > > without resorting to to insults, people come around. > > > I would LOVE to see examples of my 'ignorance' by the way. Please, > > enlighten me oh wise one! > > I don't even understand what your point is. Sure, it's theoretically > possible, and in theory, practice and theory are the same. In > practice, though, they are much different. =P It will never, ever > happen. What will never, ever happen? The standardization of card texts and rules, or an online version of the game that includes an automated judge? Frankly, even though I'm a huge proponent of it, I don't even think the standardization will ever happen. Not if the attitudes of the management of VTES that have prevailed over the last 5 years continue into the future. Even though it would enable new player, young players, to have a much better chance at understanding the game. Even though it would open up the possibility of other projects, like a fully functional online version of the game, in years to come. > I think that people aren't arguing with you anymore because no one > understands the point of of this portion of the thread. So why talk about how it could be done, if it is unlikely that even the first, baby steps will be made towards that goal? In an attempt to make the game better. If enough people actually see the problems with non standard card texts, if enough players see the problem will ill defined timing and mechanics, and if enough players want to see MORE new faces at tournaments and weekly gatherings, then it can happen. More new players means more money for WW, and a growing, healthy game with a bigger budget. A bigger budget means better expansions, more rewarding tournaments, and yes, maybe even enough money for a fully features online version of the game in years to come. But it all starts with text standardization, and a comprehensive rule book.

On Jul 26, 1:46 pm, Bill Ricardi <billrica...@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Jul 26, 12:31 pm, Jozxyqk <jfeue...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote: > > > Bill Ricardi <billrica...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > > Because the "banned list" in VTES only applies to tournaments. > > > > In casual play -- and what is more casual than online vtes? -- all cards > > > > should be supported, in an ideal world. > > > For reasons ranging from fairness, to practicality, to legality, > > > banned cards wouldn't be supported online. Well, if it were up to me, > > > who knows what another company would do. > > > Then you don't understand the difference between V:TES and the V:EKN. > > There are no banned cards in V:TES. > > I understand perfectly. But you clearly did no market research at all, > and you didn't read my reasons carefully, because there are LEGAL > reasons not to code some of the banned cards. You know, I was with you. All the way with you. Right about up till here. WTF? Um, you know crack is whack, right? And that smoking it sometimes causes you to make statements like these, right? > Assuming you want the > product to be legal in the United States and you plan to charge for > the service at all. There are fairness reasons involved in not coding > certain cards, but that's subjective, YMMV. -snip ignored reasoning- > No that tells me you haven't read the whole thread though, which is > helpful in understanding your viewpoint. And those players weren't > against HAVING an online judge, they just didn't know it was POSSIBLE. > After I explained how to make it possible, you'll notice that not very > many people were 'against' it. Dude, honestly. a few questions: 1) do you play VtES at all? 2) have you ever used ANY of the online variants? 3) have you noticed that the only person willing to pursue your rather silly quest was Josh, probably the most level headed person here? 4) You did realise you called JOSH a troll, right (ROFLMAO,THUD-THERE- GOES-ME-HEAD) While i would love to have an online version of VtES, and, if i had the cash, I would do it, your entire platform of rationality just went wet elephant.

Blooded Sand wrote: > On Jul 26, 1:46 pm, Bill Ricardi <billrica...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> I understand perfectly. But you clearly did no market research at all, >> and you didn't read my reasons carefully, because there are LEGAL >> reasons not to code some of the banned cards. > You know, I was with you. All the way with you. Right about up till > here. WTF? Um, you know crack is whack, right? And that smoking it > sometimes causes you to make statements like these, right? I'm sure there are legal reasons not to code things like ante. There may be (and probably are) legal ways to do it, but "avoid the possibility of a legal hassle" is certainly a valid legal reason to avoid coding ante.

On Jul 27, 8:48 am, Bill Ricardi <billrica...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Frankly, even though I'm a huge proponent of it, I don't even think > the standardization will ever happen. Not if the attitudes of the > management of VTES that have prevailed over the last 5 years continue > into the future. Even though it would enable new player, young > players, to have a much better chance at understanding the game. I think you are advocating for a fight that no one wants to have. VTES is, currently, reasonably successful and (presumably) reasonably profitable. Yes, it is probably true that if White Wolf decided to throw a lot more money into the game by doing things like hiring full time VTES employees and crazy marketing and rebooting and whatever, it could become something different than it currently is. But the reality of the situation is that most people playing, promoting, and designing VTES are perfectly happy with that it currently is--reasonably successful, reasonably profitable, and maintained/designed primarily by part time employees and volunteers. Does this mean that it will never be as huge and profitable as Magic? Yes. Yes it does. And I suspect that most folks are ok with that. > More new players means more money for WW, and a growing, healthy game > with a bigger budget. We have a growing, healthy game currently, with the current budget. VTES tournaments at Origins were huge this year. VTES tournaments are very well attended world wide, and consistently successful. > A bigger budget means better expansions, What makes "better" expansions? Currently, we get a Big (300 cards/ Starter decks) expansion and a Small (60 cards/no starter decks) expansion each year. Some expansions are awesome. Some are merely ok. What kind of "better" expansions are you envisioning that are enabled by a bigger budget? > more rewarding tournaments, Honestly, I don't think anyone really *wants* more rewarding tournaments. VTES is a multi-player game. There is already a great deal of room for dubious shenanagins in tournament play, when people *aren't* playing for thousand dollar prizes. I don't think VTES is a game that is *appropriate* for "more rewarding" tournaments. WHat we have now works fine, and is successful. WW could probably throw lots of money at the game in hopes of changing what we have currently into something else completely, which might not work, and just lose a bunch of money and alienate the player base we already have. How is that a good idea? -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] Putting my crack pipe away as we speak.....

[ quoted text not captured ] Correct. I wasn't going to bother to reply, but you hit the nail on the head. Ante was removed from the-product-that-will-not-be-named because of a potential violation of interstate commerce regulations. In a couple of states, it was actually considered gambling.

On Jul 27, 2:26 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > I think you are advocating for a fight that no one wants to have. It's possible. > What makes "better" expansions? The marking of rarity on the cards, additions that strictly impact collectability but not playability so that players aren't impacted (foils, signed cards, special art, etc) but collectors have some cool chase rares to go after, a wider variety of promotional cards, and the like. > > more rewarding tournaments, > > Honestly, I don't think anyone really *wants* more rewarding > tournaments. VTES is a multi-player game. There is already a great > deal of room for dubious shenanagins in tournament play, when people > *aren't* playing for thousand dollar prizes. I don't think VTES is a > game that is *appropriate* for "more rewarding" tournaments. Games can be 'thrown' just as easily in any game, multi player or two player. Prize sharing cabals, non competitive agreements, and the like exist in the most and the least successful CCG's, no matter what the prizes are. Some people will engage in dubious shenanagins just for the title of 'best'. More rewarding tournaments, by the way, doesn't always mean money or even prizes. A more rewarding tournament might mean EVERYONE who participates gets more promos. Or gets to play in a better location. Or gets treated to a buffet lunch. Or the entry fee is reduced. On an individual basis, there might be the chance to design a card with specially commissioned artwork. Or neat looking trophies. Or there could be free invitationals at the end of a season. It isn't always about dollars. More rewarding can just mean a higher quality experience.

On Jul 27, 7:56 am, Bill Ricardi <billrica...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Or I covered every topic that came up fully, including examples. Examples of what could happen in a fantasy world of your own devising aren't really examples in any useful sense of the world. > It's > funny, when you actually start using facts and you prove your point > without resorting to to insults, people come around. There aren't any examples of that happening in this thread. Or can you point out an example of someone posting agreement with your ideas about how to make VTES Online viable in the way that you envision it? > I would LOVE to see examples of my 'ignorance' by the way. Please, > enlighten me oh wise one! This thread is already full of them. You ignored them the first time around, and I doubt you'd pay any more attention to more repetitions of same. John Eno

What the hell happened here? Why the hostility? On 27 heinä, 17:33, Johann von Doom <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 27, 7:56 am, Bill Ricardi <billrica...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > It's > > funny, when you actually start using facts and you prove your point > > without resorting to to insults, people come around. > > There aren't any examples of that happening in this thread. Or can you > point out an example of someone posting agreement with your ideas > about how to make VTES Online viable in the way that you envision it? I, for one, agree that it is not impossible to standardize V:TES. As long as players or judges wouldn't have to be exposed to the new version.

[ quoted text not captured ] roflmao. Oh, and Bill, try answering the other questions. Nice dodge and all, but really, at least attempt an answer?

Bill Ricardi <billr...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > What makes "better" expansions? > The marking of rarity on the cards, additions that strictly impact > collectability but not playability so that players aren't impacted > (foils, signed cards, special art, etc) but collectors have some cool > chase rares to go after, a wider variety of promotional cards, and the > like. First of all, this proves to me that you really don't understand VTES. Nobody wants foils or "chase" rares.. and while marking of rarity would be nice, rarity does not correspond to power in this game unlike others. Second of all, what does this have to do with your original premise of wanting an online judge? There is no rarity or foil-ness in an online game. Back to my werewolf-bridge...

On 27 heinä, 17:43, Blooded Sand <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 27, 4:41 pm, suoli <suoliruse...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > What the hell happened here? Why the hostility? > > > On 27 heinä, 17:33, Johann von Doom <invisibleking...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > On Jul 27, 7:56 am, Bill Ricardi <billrica...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > > It's > > > > funny, when you actually start using facts and you prove your point > > > > without resorting to to insults, people come around. > > > > There aren't any examples of that happening in this thread. Or can you > > > point out an example of someone posting agreement with your ideas > > > about how to make VTES Online viable in the way that you envision it? > > > I, for one, agree that it is not impossible to standardize V:TES. As > > long as players or judges wouldn't have to be exposed to the new > > version. > > roflmao. Care to explain your reaction?

On Jul 27, 3:33 pm, Johann von Doom <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I would LOVE to see examples of my 'ignorance' by the way. Please, > > enlighten me oh wise one! > > This thread is already full of them. You ignored them the first time > around In other words: I couldn't find anything that makes you look stupid, so now I'll PRETEND that there are things that make you look stupid, sit back and look smug. Oh Internet, how I love thee.

On Jul 27, 9:54 am, Jozxyqk <jfeue...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote: > Bill Ricardi <billrica...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > What makes "better" expansions? > > The marking of rarity on the cards, additions that strictly impact > > collectability but not playability so that players aren't impacted > > (foils, signed cards, special art, etc) but collectors have some cool > > chase rares to go after, a wider variety of promotional cards, and the > > like. > > First of all, this proves to me that you really don't understand VTES. > Nobody wants foils or "chase" rares.. and while marking of rarity would > be nice, rarity does not correspond to power in this game unlike others. > Meh... nobody particularly *wants* foils or alternate-artwork chase rares, but I suspect that if WW did it, it wouldn't hurt sales any, and a lot of people would probably enjoy it. Now, chase rares that are not available in any other rarity, particularly power cards? That's something that no one wants, but to be fair, that's not what he's suggesting. Similarly with the rarity indicators - it would be a welcome addition to the cards, though I don't know that it would sell even 1 more booster pack, so I would suspect that it is a low priority for WW. > > Back to my werewolf-bridge... > I thought you were some sort of were-cat? Maybe a Bastet?

On Jul 27, 3:54 pm, Jozxyqk <jfeue...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote: > Bill Ricardi <billrica...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > What makes "better" expansions? > > The marking of rarity on the cards, additions that strictly impact > > collectability but not playability so that players aren't impacted > > (foils, signed cards, special art, etc) but collectors have some cool > > chase rares to go after, a wider variety of promotional cards, and the > > like. > > First of all, this proves to me that you really don't understand VTES. > Nobody wants foils or "chase" rares.. and while marking of rarity would > be nice, rarity does not correspond to power in this game unlike others. Nobody CURRENTLY wants foils or chase rares because.. THEY DON'T EXIST! Shocker! 'Chase' rares in VTES (not including the definition of 'chase' that counts tournament playability), currently, are the lame Ebay auctions of vampires signed by the artist. Woo. The fact that there is no market for something that doesn't exist yet apparently proves something. And I... never said that rarity corresponded to power. Please, show me where I said rarity corresponded to power? > Second of all, what does this have to do with your original premise > of wanting an online judge? There is no rarity or foil-ness in an online > game. Um. Yes, there are foils, special versions of cards, and rarity in an online version of card games. Please see: http://www.mtgosellingbot.com/highendfoils.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/index.html?curid=1085487#Parallels_to_paper_Magic I could explain the entire concept of online CCG economy, redeeming virtual sets for real sets if you wish, etc... but first STOP LYING. Seriously, just stop making statements of 'truth' that are blatantly untrue in an attempt to discredit others.

[ quoted text not captured ] Sorry I lost track. If the tone of the post is generally hostile, I'm likely to skip it. I've got people yelling at me, making blatant mis statements that can easily be avoided with a tiny bit of research, and some reasonable people too. I'd rather deal with the reasonable people.

On Jul 27, 10:28 am, Bill Ricardi <billrica...@googlemail.com> wrote: > The marking of rarity on the cards, additions that strictly impact > collectability but not playability so that players aren't impacted > (foils, signed cards, special art, etc) but collectors have some cool > chase rares to go after, a wider variety of promotional cards, and the > like. I'll give you that marking of rarity on cards would be completely harmless and provide a benefit for no added hinderance, so yeah, they should probably do that. Other than that, adding jank aimed at collectors makes everything more expensive without adding anything to the game--yes, adding folis and signed cards and whatever might make purchasing the game more attractive to collectors, but it would do nothing at all to make the game better and would also make the game more expensive. Which strikes me as a overall negative. > Games can be 'thrown' just as easily in any game, multi player or two > player. Prize sharing cabals, non competitive agreements, and the like > exist in the most and the least successful CCG's, no matter what the > prizes are. Some people will engage in dubious shenanagins just for > the title of 'best'. Sure. It strikes me as questionable to add more incentive to do that, however. VTES, as a multi player game, is inherently more vulnerable to shady play, shady dealing, and collusion than a one on one game is. Adding more incentive to make this happen can only hurt the game. > More rewarding tournaments, by the way, doesn't always mean money or > even prizes. A more rewarding tournament might mean EVERYONE who > participates gets more promos. Everyone already gets more promos. Have you played in a big VTES tournament recently? VTES has one of the most liberal/bountiful promo systems I have ever run across. > Or gets to play in a better location. What kind of better location are you envisioning that either needs to be better or would be better? > Or gets treated to a buffet lunch. Or the entry fee is reduced. On an > individual basis, there might be the chance to design a card with > specially commissioned artwork. Or neat looking trophies. Or there > could be free invitationals at the end of a season. VTES already does most of, or all of, these things. Like, I'm getting the sense here that you haven't actually played in many large VTES events. And consequently, you are making assumptions based on limited information. Have you been to Origins? Have you been to a Continental Championship? Have you been to The Week of Nightmares? > It isn't always about dollars. More rewarding can just mean a higher > quality experience. VTES already provides a high quality experience with what it has now. I'm unconvinced that throwing more money at it would increase the quality of the experience. -Peter

On Jul 27, 3:52 pm, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: > Similarly with the rarity indicators - it would be a > welcome addition to the cards, though I don't know that it would sell > even 1 more booster pack, so I would suspect that it is a low priority > for WW. I consider it part of becoming more organized, really. Part of standardization. When you're trying to show a new player the contents of a booster back, and you're explaining rarity, it gets awkward. "Mister, how do you know that's the rare?" Position in the pack, spoiler lists, 'just knowing', none of these are great answers in a short demo. Saying, "See this symbol here? That tells you how rare a card is." That is a GREAT answer in the limited time that you have to capture the imagination of a new player. Question asked, question answered, and it makes you look like both you, and the company, have your shit together.

On Jul 27, 11:09 am, Bill Ricardi <billrica...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Nobody CURRENTLY wants foils or chase rares because.. THEY DON'T > EXIST! And the current (sufficient) player base, generally speaking, is likely indifferent to the opportunity to want foils or chase rares. 'Cause they don't help the game. They just make the game more expensive to actually play. > Shocker! 'Chase' rares in VTES (not including the definition of > 'chase' that counts tournament playability), currently, are the lame > Ebay auctions of vampires signed by the artist. Woo. How does that negatively impact the game, that the secondary market is, for the most part, completely reasonable and almost entirely driven by "what is good for playing the game with" as opposed to "what is incredibly hard to get irrelevant jank that I need to complete a set"? > Um. Yes, there are foils, special versions of cards, and rarity in an > online version of card games. Please see: Yes. Which is, what do you say, insane. Why would any remotely rational person chase after virtual foil cards? -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] The joy and irony of seeing a discussion regarding standardisation of rules, that should never be seen by those who generally use the rules.... No diss directed at you suoli, the irony was just delicious. ;)

[ quoted text not captured ] Well the hilarious bit was that at first I was quite astrogly supporting your comments and thoughts as far as compiling a program friendly set of rules. Then you went way of the reservation, and I just started thinking you are a bit funny. So 1) Do you play VtES? if yes 1.1) how often? 1.2) how long? No animosity intended, but if you have been playing for long enough you might understand people's current state of mind re the game a bit better. I think you are creating unnecessary hostility towards yourself simply because of some things you assume implicitly, that a lot of people here do not agree with. 2) What makes you think there is any kind of market in VtES for things like chase rares, foil cards, etc? See the extremely winding arguments regarding apparent rarity level of acrds in new big base sets that are not reprints, and the massive amount of annoyance it causes. 3) If you think the term "Are you smoking crack" is hostile, you have obviously not spent nearly enough time on this group ;) See it as a lovable term of endearment, usually reserved for those who kindred Spirit their cross table buddy without due cause...

[ quoted text not captured ] And you answer the question. Neat how that works out, hey?

[ quoted text not captured ] None taken. The point is that the rules in their current form are too ambiguous and nearly impossible to translate to a programming language. This is why the rules would require standardization. However, I believe that the standardized version, while manageable for a programmer, would be so complex that it would be useless to the average player. The obvious solution would be to submit a standardized (but functionally the same, minus ambiguity) version only to the programmers. The old rules would then be analogous to a user manual.

On Jul 27, 10:52 am, Bill Ricardi <billrica...@googlemail.com> wrote: > In other words: I couldn't find anything that makes you look stupid, > so now I'll PRETEND that there are things that make you look stupid, > sit back and look smug. This post makes me feel like a character from one of those Final Fantasy games. ... ... ..... 1) You understand that I never claimed that you're stupid, right? Ignorance and stupidity aren't synonomous. 2) You realize that with the exception of two posts that I'll quote below (which are themselves pretty ambivalent), every single response to your idea of how to make your version of VTES online has been met with people explaining to you why it won't happen, right? And that, therefore, your self-congratulatory declaration of rhetorical victory is hilariously premature, even if people have stopped responding to you? Even if you are, in fact, correct that you've convinced everyone who didn't agree with you? Here are the closest examples I could find of people NOT pointing out that you don't have a firm base from which to make your claims. Every other post in this thread which is a response to you is one which points out your ignorance; quoting them all would obviously be more than a little redundant, so I'll skip that. On Jul 25, 7:41 pm, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > Thanks for that list. I wonder if that would take years. Seems pretty > doable, and desirable even from a non-online player point of view. But > since I am unwilling to do that job, I'll just continue to enjoy the > game as it is... On Jul 25, 7:42 pm, suoli <suoliruse...@gmail.com> wrote: > A 500K rulebook written in formal and well defined language is cool > for a computer but a major PITA for a human player. MTG's current > rules are a convoluted nightmare and I'm glad that the V:TES design > team chose to stick with natural language and arbitration as > necessary. > > Of course, there's no reason to make the process visible. If you truly > can standardize the rules without affecting functionality or > restricting card design (of which I'm not actually so sure about) you > should also be able to give the standardized rules to the programmers > and show the old rules and card text to the users. Of course, it's entirely possible that I missed something in my review of the thread, so I'll ask again: can you point out an example of someone posting agreement with your ideas about how to make VTES Online viable in the way that you envision it? John Eno

On Jul 27, 4:15 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > I'll give you that marking of rarity on cards would be completely > harmless and provide a benefit for no added hinderance, so yeah, they > should probably do that. Other than that, adding jank aimed at > collectors makes everything more expensive without adding anything to > the game--yes, adding folis and signed cards and whatever might make > purchasing the game more attractive to collectors, but it would do > nothing at all to make the game better and would also make the game > more expensive. Which strikes me as a overall negative. It depends on how many collectors you can attract really. And how many current players have a little collector streak in them. Your deck is cool and all, but lets face it, if your deck was all FOIL, well sir THAT would be neat! And shiny. Look at the shine! When foils were first introduced to other card games, I admit that I thought it was a fad, the serious player base would never buy into it, etc. I was absolutely wrong. It turns out that the best players tended to be competitive and perhaps slightly OCD... and they wanted as many foils, special artwork cards, and the like in their decks as possible. I think that might translate over to VTES too. > Sure. It strikes me as questionable to add more incentive to do that, > however. VTES, as a multi player game, is inherently more vulnerable > to shady play, shady dealing, and collusion than a one on one game is. > Adding more incentive to make this happen can only hurt the game. We didn't have too much trouble with Shadow Fist when the prizes started to get seriously cool, including signed Hong Kong movie posters and fairly awesome (and expensive) movie related products. There was still a sense of community, and even though it is a multiplayer game, collusion was shockingly rare. Jose and later Zev felt that they had to instill a reward system that really reflected the passion, loyalty, and effort of the community. Lets hope that Inner Kingdom Games carries on that tradition. At any rate, it didn't hurt the game in that case, and I would hope that the strength of the VTES community would be equal to that. I'm not talking tens of thousands of dollars here, but the ante could be upped, at least a bit. > Everyone already gets more promos. Have you played in a big VTES > tournament recently? VTES has one of the most liberal/bountiful promo > systems I have ever run across. You're saying 'more' as in number of the same promos given out. I'm saying 'more' as in they will be able to afford more unique, small print runs and produces a wider variety of promos, including event specific ones in some cases. Not more like everyone gets 10 of them if they attend a lot of tournaments, I'm saying more as in even more unique ones every year than thy currently produce. > > Or gets to play in a better location. > > What kind of better location are you envisioning that either needs to > be better or would be better? I've been to events that were held in the crowded basements of card shops, the extra tables that a comic book shop had in their store room, and the back tables of a Korean restaurant. While this is quaint, more money means better treatment from the stores, higher profile regional events, and enough polish to make the game look more attractive to potential new players. > VTES already does most of, or all of, these things. Like, I'm getting > the sense here that you haven't actually played in many large VTES > events I'm not talking about large events. I'm talking about having the budget to make regional events more special. That's where you attract your new players, and thats where you reward the loyalty of players who can't necessarily spend the time or the money to get out to Week of Nightmares. They can't justify a multi-day trip out to Gen Con. The only part of the VTES world they experience is the local tournaments. I'll give you an example (though the source is going to fray some nerves I'm sure): One of the most successful of the various regional CCG programs was Local Magic (Later to be branded as Friday Night Magic). This was back in the mid 90's, when the Pro Tour hadn't quite started up. WOTC had just blown a huge chunk of their cash reserves because they opened up a new 250 person office, and they lost huge sums on their Role Playing division with the failed Everway. They were still making money, but even with 65 million in sales, their actual profit was razor thin. So the budget for local game community support was a huge question. But that's where all of their money went anyway. They knew that 1996 was going to be their make or break year, but they needed to expand the player base rapidly. They knew that the big events were rewards for the hard core players, but the new players came from local communities: the regional card stores. So there were special print runs, there were awesome prizes, the Hall of Fame was created, and local card shops were hansomely rewarded because the results were a whole boatload of new players, driving local sales. I'm not saying that VTES absolutely must grow their player base. I am saying that a CCG community is a self perpetuating cycle that starts at the local level, and for 90 percent of the players it ENDS at the local level as well. Out of the tens of thousands of players, only a fraction of that will go play at Origins, and Gencon... and often times it is the SAME players that fly out to play at all of the big events! The vast majority will see one, maybe 2 big events in their lifetime, if they see any at all. The growth takes place in the community, THAT is where the prize support, the special incentives, and the money needs to go.

On Jul 27, 4:32 pm, Blooded Sand <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote: > 1) Do you play VtES? Yes. > 1.1) how often / how long Not often these days. Up until a couple years ago I was a regular with Ian Lee's group out of San Jose and I played... what, 5 years or so? I was an active beta tester for 2 sets as well (Final Nights and Bloodlines I think? Might have been Bloodlines and CE). I still collaborate with Ian on a regular basis. > 2) What makes you think there is any kind of market in VtES for things > like chase rares, foil cards, etc? It is a whole new market, intended to attract a whole new batch of people. Specifically to NOT annoy the current batch of players, it would have NO impact on the playability of the cards themselves! As a matter of fact, if you don't care about something like foil, you could probably trade your foil for a normal version of the card plus another card! Everyone wins. And as I mentioned before, there are a lot of players who don't think they want the foils... until they become available. I never thought it would catch on myself, but I saw it first hand in two other CCG's. And I wasn't necessarily talking about you when I said I was ignoring threads, I just explained why I might skim through some people's replies rather than seriously answer them. Some things might get missed.

On Jul 26, 6:31 am, Jozxyqk <jfeue...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote: > > Back to your bridge. > > I'm not a troll, I'm a werewolf.http://www.monocleofclarity.com/ossian.jpg Ossian ftw!

On Jul 27, 4:20 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > And the current (sufficient) player base, generally speaking, is > likely indifferent to the opportunity to want foils or chase rares. > 'Cause they don't help the game. They just make the game more > expensive to actually play. Truth is, if you can really avoid the temptation of foils and other chase rares, they make the game cheaper to play. If the collector's secondary market holds true with many other CCG's with foils, you can often trade a foil version of a rare for up to 2 normal versions of the same rare. So if you really don't care, you can turn your shiny cards into more playable cards for yourself! The cost is taken up by collectors and those who are obsessive about the 'gotta catch em all' aspect of anything collectible. Which is a good thing for serious players too, because a n active secondary market on something they have no intrest in is simply pure profit for them. > How does that negatively impact the game, that the secondary market > is, for the most part, completely reasonable and almost entirely > driven by "what is good for playing the game with" as opposed to "what > is incredibly hard to get irrelevant jank that I need to complete a > set"? It doesn't. but it doesn't POSITIVELY impact the game either. It's just there, like a rotting log. > Yes. Which is, what do you say, insane. Why would any remotely > rational person chase after virtual foil cards? Why would people collect Beenie Babies? I have no idea, but shockingly, they do!

> The marking of rarity on the cards, additions that strictly impact > collectability but not playability so that players aren't impacted > (foils, signed cards, special art, etc) but collectors have some cool > chase rares to go after, a wider variety of promotional cards, and the > like. PLEASE NO...FOIL ENKIL COG anyone? Many cards are already hard enough to get as they are now...

On Jul 27, 12:14 pm, Bill Ricardi <billrica...@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Jul 27, 4:15 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > > Everyone already gets more promos. Have you played in a big VTES > > tournament recently? VTES has one of the most liberal/bountiful promo > > systems I have ever run across. > > You're saying 'more' as in number of the same promos given out. I'm > saying 'more' as in they will be able to afford more unique, small > print runs and produces a wider variety of promos, including event > specific ones in some cases. Not more like everyone gets 10 of them if > they attend a lot of tournaments, I'm saying more as in even more > unique ones every year than thy currently produce. I know people's opinions may vary on this a lot, but I wanted to go on the record with the following: I'm actually opposed to that, and the move toward more, unique, impossible-to-get without going to specific tournaments promos has already been a major factor in driving me away from one game (L5R) when they went in that direction. I'm OK with the level of promo support VTES currently has; I'd much prefer, if WW/CCP were going to increase promo production and support, that it be along the lines of alternate-art or other special versions of cards rather than new, unique cards that those who can't make it to a lot of tournaments simply can't get easily enough. - D.J.

On Jul 27, 5:12 pm, Johann von Doom <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2) You realize that with the exception of two posts that I'll quote > below (which are themselves pretty ambivalent), every single response > to your idea of how to make your version of VTES online has been met > with people explaining to you why it won't happen, right? The thread is filled with people saying 'it won't happen'. Then when I ask for evidence, for numbers, for ANY sort of reliable source other than their 'personal feelings', I get nothing. I describe the success stories of other companies, explain in detail how their economic model works. The 'reasons why it won't happen' however, are oddly not based in any factual realm. The first reply, by Anthony, he admits that he's guessing, and I admire him for his honesty: 'the amount of time, resource and money that would take is massive and for a small game like vtes utterly disproportionate to the benefit.' He also admits that what he's saying is just an opinion, which I also admire: 'imo not going to ever be able to be sold as an online variant.' Johannes felt that it might not be WW's objective, and I agreed. It certainly might NOT be their objective! If it isn't, nothing we say about it matters anyway. But I still find the topic worth exploring in case it IS or BECOMES their objective some day. Kevin said nobody would pay $5 for a different online VTES product, and I commented that I wouldn't pay a dime for that particular product myself. He asked if I knew of investors, and I said: Not in the state that the game is currently in! Then there were some rather rude attacks, calling me an uninformed idiot, which I ignored. Then Chris thought that the rules were far too complex to incorporate into an automated judge, and I explained that MTGO's level 5 judge had to deal with issues that are far more complex, as Magic's timing system and sheer volume of rules were more complex than VTES's. Multiple people asked what money was out there, and I said: None. I explained that nobody who knew what they were investing in would touch a VTES online project until the paper game's card and rules were standardized. XZealot asked what changes needed to be made in order to make an online version investable, and I outlined the major changes. Suoli pointed out that there should b 2 versions of the rules, simplified and full complexity, and I agreed, pointing out that other CCGs have the same. We discussed the ability to add 'offline' play to a future online product. Jozxyqk pointed out that some cards would be difficult to code, and I agreed, saying that's why the whole process would take years. He then pointed out that certain banned cards would be impossible to code, and I agreed, saying that banned cards would not be coded for legal and fairness reasons. He then went back to the financial 'impossibility' angle, providing zero evidence, which I assumed was just to annoy me. Then you happened. Where, in all of that, is an OUNCE of evidence that 'it won't happen'? I see a lot of opinions. There was no 'explaining'. In fact, _I_ explained why it would take years before it was remotely feasible. Years of had work that would have to happen before anyone would even look at it. I guess that's unreasonable.

On Jul 27, 6:03 pm, Dragos <dra...@dominiosp.pro.br> wrote: > PLEASE NO...FOIL ENKIL COG anyone? Many cards are already hard enough > to get as they are now... Heh. Foils wouldn't increase rarity, don't worry. :)

On Jul 27, 6:14 pm, "D.J." <dj...@comcast.net> wrote: > On Jul 27, 12:14 pm, Bill Ricardi <billrica...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 27, 4:15 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > > > Everyone already gets more promos. Have you played in a big VTES > > > tournament recently? VTES has one of the most liberal/bountiful promo > > > systems I have ever run across. > > > You're saying 'more' as in number of the same promos given out. I'm > > saying 'more' as in they will be able to afford more unique, small > > print runs and produces a wider variety of promos, including event > > specific ones in some cases. Not more like everyone gets 10 of them if > > they attend a lot of tournaments, I'm saying more as in even more > > unique ones every year than thy currently produce. > > I know people's opinions may vary on this a lot, but I wanted to go on > the record with the following: I'm actually opposed to that, and the > move toward more, unique, impossible-to-get without going to specific > tournaments promos has already been a major factor in driving me away > from one game (L5R) when they went in that direction. One reasonable way to do it: Make the ones that are given out for specific BIG events are generally the same cards that you can get from sets, but with new art work and flavor text and what have you. Others would be available all month long at local events, a-la Friday Night Magic. Really it just depends on the desires of the community. More new players and more money can feed directly into those desires. > I'm OK with the > level of promo support VTES currently has; I'd much prefer, if WW/CCP > were going to increase promo production and support, that it be along > the lines of alternate-art or other special versions of cards rather > than new, unique cards that those who can't make it to a lot of > tournaments simply can't get easily enough. Yeah exactly. Takes money though, those special print runs.

On Jul 27, 11:24 am, Bill Ricardi <billrica...@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Jul 27, 4:32 pm, Blooded Sand <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > 1) Do you play VtES? > > Yes. > > > 1.1) how often / how long > > Not often these days. Up until a couple years ago I was a regular with > Ian Lee's group out of San Jose and I played... what, 5 years or so? I > was an active beta tester for 2 sets as well (Final Nights and > Bloodlines I think? Might have been Bloodlines and CE). I still > collaborate with Ian on a regular basis. > > > 2) What makes you think there is any kind of market in VtES for things > > like chase rares, foil cards, etc? > > It is a whole new market, intended to attract a whole new batch of > people. Specifically to NOT annoy the current batch of players, it > would have NO impact on the playability of the cards themselves! As a > matter of fact, if you don't care about something like foil, you could > probably trade your foil for a normal version of the card plus another > card! Everyone wins. And as I mentioned before, there are a lot of > players who don't think they want the foils... until they become > available. I never thought it would catch on myself, but I saw it > first hand in two other CCG's. But printing foil cards isn't free or cheap, and there is the additional randomization step of putting foils into circulations (i.e. foils are printed in sheets and not every pack gets a foil). Those costs have to be made up somewhere, and they would be made up in higher booster prices which, specifically, would annoy the current batch of players. How would you handle that?

> > Heh. Foils wouldn't increase rarity, don't worry. :) Ya, but then I would have to get a regular AND a foil (if I understand correctly how it works - never played/collected other CCGs).

[ quoted text not captured ] You know, it's funny. CCP is a big online MMORPG company (apparently). One would think that one of the first things they would have looked at was to create a VTESO. That they haven't done one yet, or even started what you say is the groundwork for creating one, I think speaks to either 1) it won't be feasible financially; or 2) something else. I know 2 is obviously broad, but I can't really get past thinking that option 1 is why they haven't done anything along those lines yet. Negative evidence isn't really evidence, but without being in CCP's boardroom, it's just about all we have. One thing VTES could do to pay for an online version of the game would be to raise booster prices. VTES boosters are the cheapest of all, period. Wouldn't make current purchasing base happy, but price increases never do. Question is would additional profit from raised prices, added to potential income from VTESO offset loss of sales from same raised prices. Answer - "maybe?" best - chris PS you should play JOL just because it's a Bay Area product - you may have even gamed with George back in the day?

On Jul 27, 6:06 pm, suoli <suoliruse...@gmail.com> wrote: > None taken. > > The point is that the rules in their current form are too ambiguous > and nearly impossible to translate to a programming language. This is > why the rules would require standardization. However, I believe that > the standardized version, while manageable for a programmer, would be > so complex that it would be useless to the average player. The obvious > solution would be to submit a standardized (but functionally the same, > minus ambiguity) version only to the programmers. The old rules would > then be analogous to a user manual. This I completely understand. I just love how this eminently sensible idea keeps running into the most interesting problems. This thread most likely being one of them :)

On Jul 27, 12:30 pm, Bill Ricardi <billrica...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Truth is, if you can really avoid the temptation of foils and other > chase rares, they make the game cheaper to play. Via the logic of what? Foil cards are more expensive than non foil cards. Mixing some into the set requires printing them. Which means the cost goes up to pay for the foil cards. > If the collector's secondary market holds true with many other CCG's > with foils, you can often trade a foil version of a rare for up to 2 > normal versions of the same rare. So if you really don't care, you can > turn your shiny cards into more playable cards for yourself! But buying the cards in the first place requires more of an initial outlay. Which means you are swapping: -Low cost/low effort card accumulation for -High cost/high effort card accumulation Which, while certainly a model, probably not a model that appeals to the existing, very loyal VTES player base. > The cost is taken up by collectors and those who are obsessive about > the 'gotta catch em all' aspect of anything collectible. Which is a > good thing for serious players too, because a n active secondary > market on something they have no intrest in is simply pure profit for > them. VTES has an active secondary market. That is thankfully primarily governed by rational mechanisms (i.e. "this card is good, so it costs more") as opposed to irrational ones (i.e. "this card is shiny, so it costs more"). > It doesn't. but it doesn't POSITIVELY impact the game either. It's > just there, like a rotting log. Uh, that VTES cards on the secondary market are, for the most part, completely reasonably priced (i.e. most good rares are, like, 5 bucks, tops; the most expensive chase card you can imagine tops out at, maybe, 30 these days) means that it is that much easier to get the cards you want for a reasonable cost. That is a positive benefit. And a significant one, at that. > Why would people collect Beenie Babies? I have no idea, but > shockingly, they do! It seems like your idea here is to take a game that have survived and thrived on rational development and rational mechanisms for a long time, and is successful enough, and then by judicious application of lots of money and risk, turn it into something that wishes to be hoisted upon irrationality and shiny jank. I suspect that the vast majority of the player base of this game would react with a "Uh, no thanks." -Peter

Bill Ricardi <billr...@googlemail.com> wrote: >It's funny, when you actually start using facts and you prove your >point without resorting to to insults, people come around. The bit where you accused a well-known, well-respected V:TES player of being a troll was your downfall, then. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

[ quoted text not captured ] You only have to get a regular AND a foil if you happen to want both. As far as playing the game goes, a foil offers no benefit over a regular version, so you only "need" the regular.

[ quoted text not captured ] Please tell me my nick is fixed? Crud.... Blooded Sand is thinking: Shiny vampires? In this community? Really? You honestly wanna flood this with ORLY's? Shiny vamps. Ew. Contracts on all shining vamps now with our buy one get one free special! Limited availability! Book now!

James Coupe wrote: > Bill Ricardi <billr...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> It's funny, when you actually start using facts and you prove your >> point without resorting to to insults, people come around. > > The bit where you accused a well-known, well-respected V:TES player of > being a troll was your downfall, then. Oh? I thought it was just Josh. :-)

[ quoted text not captured ] Foils make crackly sounds when you burn them? And when they belong to that other game they can actually make people cvry? ;)

On Jul 27, 12:14 pm, Bill Ricardi <billrica...@googlemail.com> wrote: > It depends on how many collectors you can attract really. And how many > current players have a little collector streak in them. Your deck is > cool and all, but lets face it, if your deck was all FOIL, well sir > THAT would be neat! And shiny. Look at the shine! Yeah, see, that is just foolish. > When foils were first introduced to other card games, I admit that I > thought it was a fad, the serious player base would never buy into it, > etc. I was absolutely wrong. It turns out that the best players tended > to be competitive and perhaps slightly OCD... and they wanted as many > foils, special artwork cards, and the like in their decks as possible. > I think that might translate over to VTES too. It might. But it seems like a silly path to follow, given how the game is already relatively successful. And likely relatively profitable. And has a very loyal player base. That likely would react poorly to attempts to turn VTES into Yu Gi Oh. I suspect that the irrational that we already have (i.e. people who object to their game being turned into Yu Gi Oh) is much better than the irrational that we might get if we took a gamble (i.e. people who really like shiny cards). > We didn't have too much trouble with Shadow Fist when the prizes > started to get seriously cool, including signed Hong Kong movie > posters and fairly awesome (and expensive) movie related products. Yes. This is all true. But that has nothing to do with changing the content of the card packs. > There was still a sense of community, and even though it is a > multiplayer game, collusion was shockingly rare. Jose and later Zev > felt that they had to instill a reward system that really reflected > the passion, loyalty, and effort of the community. Lets hope that > Inner Kingdom Games carries on that tradition. At any rate, it didn't > hurt the game in that case, and I would hope that the strength of the > VTES community would be equal to that. I'm not talking tens of > thousands of dollars here, but the ante could be upped, at least a > bit. Yes, but it didn't help the game that much either--I'll point out that Shadow Fist, as much as I am fond of it and still play all the time, has gone under 3 or 4 times already. And at no point has Shadow Fist ever introduced foils/chase rares/whatever. Heck, IIRC, one of the reasons that they went under the first time was 'cause the foil Ting Ting stamp on the initial print run was too expensive... > You're saying 'more' as in number of the same promos given out. I'm > saying 'more' as in they will be able to afford more unique, small > print runs and produces a wider variety of promos, including event > specific ones in some cases. And again, VTES has lots and lots of *different* promos. Including event specific promos. Do you play in VTES tournaments ever? > I've been to events that were held in the crowded basements of card > shops, the extra tables that a comic book shop had in their store > room, and the back tables of a Korean restaurant. I've been to tournaments like that too. I've also been to tournaments that have been held in giant convention halls and really expensive hotels. This isn't something that the company has control over. If you have access to the back table of a Korean restaurant, you use the back tables of a Korean restaurant. If you have access to a giant convention hall, you use a giant convention hall. -Peter

On Jul 27, 1:16 pm, Bill Ricardi <billrica...@googlemail.com> wrote: > The thread is filled with people saying 'it won't happen'. Then when I > ask for evidence, for numbers, for ANY sort of reliable source other > than their 'personal feelings', I get nothing. That's because none of us, including you, have any of the numbers you're looking for. WW/CCP does, but we don't. So opinions are all we have. > I describe the success > stories of other companies, explain in detail how their economic model > works. That's the price of tea in China. It doesn't matter in this context, because this context is very different. That's what people have been trying to explain to you in order to illuminate why it's not a good example to use in this discussion. > The 'reasons why it won't happen' however, are oddly not based > in any factual realm. See above. > Where, in all of that, is an OUNCE of evidence that 'it won't happen'? See above. > I see a lot of opinions. There was no 'explaining'. Then you should re-read the thread. People have explained their opinions. That they haven't backed them up with charts and graphs is entirely reasonable, because we don't have access to any charts and graphs that apply to the discussion. > In fact, _I_ > explained why it would take years before it was remotely feasible. > Years of had work that would have to happen before anyone would even > look at it. > > I guess that's unreasonable. No, that's fine. My objection, if you see where I jumped into the thread, is to your little victory dance and its arrogance, which isn't actually backed up by what's happening in the discussion. (And that probably was wrapped up in your implication that Josh is a troll, which really hurt your credibility here.) In short, I didn't take issue with you disagreeing with Josh, or Anthony, or Johann, or any of the other folks here who likely know quite a bit more about VTES than you do. I took issue with you implying that you've got access to information those other people don't, and that Josh's arguments are somehow invalid because they're trumped by your imaginary data. The accusation of trolling was just icing on the eyeroll cake. John Eno

[ quoted text not captured ] You've put the cart before the horse. FIRST you fix the game's basic issues, and market this new fixed product towards new players. THEN while you have a fresh surge of new faces (and money) you introduce things like foils. You make up for the cost of printing foils, because you're saving on the economy of scale for printing the normal run of very set from that point on. Because you have to print cards for the old players and the influx of new players. Print runs are cheaper on a per card basis if they're larger. The bigger your player base, the less you pay per card. But rather than pocketing that savings, you re-invest it into things like foils, special art, star-signed cards, and the like. Thus increasing your fan base, thus decreasing your cost per card, et etc until you hit critical mass.

On Jul 27, 12:26 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > But printing foil cards isn't free or cheap, and there is the > additional randomization step of putting foils into circulations (i.e. > foils are printed in sheets and not every pack gets a foil). > > Those costs have to be made up somewhere, and they would be made up in > higher booster prices which, specifically, would annoy the current > batch of players. > > How would you handle that? The idea of foils is that the increase in projected sales makes up for the added marginal cost (assuming that the additional cost doesn't push your profit margin negative). It's actually a pretty clever idea for increasing the collectibility of a set of cards without alienating players who don't want to buy any more. One of the only points that Bill states that I agree with is that it really has been shown to work well at increasing sales, virtually across the board. Whether the printing of foils would result in enough increased sales to make up the difference is a problem for the marketing team. I suspect that it would *probably* be worth it, but it's a big enough risk factor that I don't think we'll actually see it. It's much more likely than seeing a pile of money and time dumped into making the rules into a machine-readable form.

Bill Ricardi <billr...@googlemail.com> wrote: >Nobody CURRENTLY wants foils or chase rares because.. THEY DON'T >EXIST! Shocker! In fact, these discussions have been had before and quite a few people have voiced the opinion that they couldn't honestly care if White Wolf added them to the game. People have been particularly vocal about disliking cards that are artificially rare, such as the R1 cards in Final Nights. This is because people can have discussions about things that DON'T EXIST. Shocker. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jul 27, 6:51 pm, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > Bill Ricardi <billrica...@googlemail.com> wrote: > >Nobody CURRENTLY wants foils or chase rares because.. THEY DON'T > >EXIST! Shocker! > > In fact, these discussions have been had before and quite a few people > have voiced the opinion that they couldn't honestly care if White Wolf > added them to the game. That's nice. It also wasn't the statement I was replying to. This was: > First of all, this proves to me that you really don't understand VTES. > Nobody wants foils or "chase" rares.. and while marking of rarity would > be nice, rarity does not correspond to power in this game unlike others. NOBODY wants foils is what you said. I went on to post about how there is a whole world of people out there who collect things. I went on to post about expanding the player base, especially the young player base. People who are more likely to collect. I note that the number of people against it has gone from everyone to 'quite a few people', which is interesting. Would you happen to have a link to these discussions by the way? Searching for 'foil' and VTES tends to bring up foiling people's plans or what have you.

On Jul 27, 7:51 pm, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Popcorn, it exists grasshopper. Accept this and become one with the buttery goodness.....

On Jul 27, 7:51 pm, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Popcorn, it exists grasshopper. Accept this and become one with the buttery goodness.....

[ quoted text not captured ] It's known as "betting on the come" you are investing against increased sales. Unfortunantly, that is what the problem was in the first place by in 1996 when WOTC was running it. They weren't able to get to the critical mass that they thought they needed to promote the game a the level that they wanted to. In 1997-1999, better known as "the Dark Age of VTES" the market was flooded with cheap cards (e.g. Jyhad boxes for $5) that had been over- printed and couldn't be sold at a profit, therefore WOTC wouldn't print any more cards because they were losing money on them. The is different from the current system where WW makes their profits on print runs as they get sold, then they reprint high demand sets. The current system works, and the previous system didn't. You are advocating a return to the previous system.

On Jul 27, 7:34 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > It's known as "betting on the come" you are investing against > increased sales. No betting involved. If you don't see enough increased sales, you don't go through with the rest of the plan. All you've invested in that point is time in standardizing the game's conventions and attempted to appeal to new players. Both good things, both rewarding in their own right. The 50K-ish invested in the standardization portion of a project such as this might be recovered, might be partly recovered, or might be lost. You can't predict exactly what the market will look like over a year out. And it depends heavily on WW's other plans. But there IS a stop-loss, and its fairly low.

On Jul 27, 7:34 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > The is different from the current system where WW makes their profits > on print runs as they get sold, then they reprint high demand sets. > The current system works, and the previous system didn't. You are > advocating a return to the previous system. On a totally different note... WHEN did I talk about returning to the 'dark age', exactly? I never talked about pre-printing at all. Whatever their print runs are now: if there's more demand, they'll save money. Period. They don't have to switch from their current system at all. They simply have to respond to demand, which will benefit from the economy of scale of their now-more-popular product.

Bill Ricardi <billr...@googlemail.com> wrote: >On Jul 27, 6:51�pm, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >> Bill Ricardi <billrica...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> >Nobody CURRENTLY wants foils or chase rares because.. THEY DON'T >> >EXIST! Shocker! >> >> In fact, these discussions have been had before and quite a few people >> have voiced the opinion that they couldn't honestly care if White Wolf >> added them to the game. > >That's nice. It also wasn't the statement I was replying to. This was: > >> First of all, this proves to me that you really don't understand VTES. >> Nobody wants foils or "chase" rares.. and while marking of rarity would >> be nice, rarity does not correspond to power in this game unlike others. > >NOBODY wants foils is what you said. You appear to have taken leave of your senses. I didn't write that. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jul 27, 2:24 pm, Bill Ricardi <billrica...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > >Nobody CURRENTLY wants foils or chase rares because.. THEY DON'T > > >EXIST! Shocker! > NOBODY wants foils is what you said. Twilight fan-girls not-withstanding, nobody wants vampires to be SHINY or to SPARKLE. Carpe noctem. Lasombra http://www.TheLasombra.com

James Coupe wrote: > Bill Ricardi <billr...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> On Jul 27, 6:51 pm, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >>> Bill Ricardi <billrica...@googlemail.com> wrote: >>>> Nobody CURRENTLY wants foils or chase rares because.. THEY DON'T >>>> EXIST! Shocker! >>> In fact, these discussions have been had before and quite a few people >>> have voiced the opinion that they couldn't honestly care if White Wolf >>> added them to the game. >> That's nice. It also wasn't the statement I was replying to. This was: >> >>> First of all, this proves to me that you really don't understand VTES. >>> Nobody wants foils or "chase" rares.. and while marking of rarity would >>> be nice, rarity does not correspond to power in this game unlike others. >> NOBODY wants foils is what you said. > > You appear to have taken leave of your senses. I didn't write that. <sigh> The "you" in his statement has an obvious, sense-staying meaning.

On Jul 27, 7:43 pm, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > Bill Ricardi <billrica...@googlemail.com> wrote: > >On Jul 27, 6:51 pm, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > >> Bill Ricardi <billrica...@googlemail.com> wrote: > >> >Nobody CURRENTLY wants foils or chase rares because.. THEY DON'T > >> >EXIST! Shocker! > > >> In fact, these discussions have been had before and quite a few people > >> have voiced the opinion that they couldn't honestly care if White Wolf > >> added them to the game. > > >That's nice. It also wasn't the statement I was replying to. This was: > > >> First of all, this proves to me that you really don't understand VTES. > >> Nobody wants foils or "chase" rares.. and while marking of rarity would > >> be nice, rarity does not correspond to power in this game unlike others. > > >NOBODY wants foils is what you said. > > You appear to have taken leave of your senses. I didn't write that. I've used the collective 'you' to mean 'those who claim there is no demand for foils'. If you don't want to be grouped in with that cabal, perhaps you shouldn't have quoted from that particular thread and then taken up the same banner. Either way, I eagerly await someone directing me to ' these discussions' which apparently 'have been had before' The result of which was 'quite a few people have voiced the opinion that they couldn't honestly care if White Wolf added' foils to the game. I would like to read them in detail.

On Jul 27, 8:07 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > The "you" in his statement has an obvious, sense-staying meaning. You know, I have a new appreciation for what you deal with.

[ quoted text not captured ] So we can get new players just by "standardizing the game's conventions"? If that is true and it doesn't cost anything, then I am sure that everyone would support it. Could you give us some examples of how we would do that in VTES? Perhaps you could work up an outline and post it here. Coudl you give us some easy "low-hanging fruit" that we could get started with?

[ quoted text not captured ] I am saying that overprinting VTES in the first place led to the "Dark Age of VTES" cir.1996-1999. Specifically, I was addressing your point where you said " You make up for the cost of printing foils, because you're saving on the economy of scale for printing the normal run of very set from that point on." Economies of Scale is a term used where you increase the scale of your project (i.e. print more cards) and you make a high profit because your fixed costs are spread out over more inventory. That is how you flood the market. That is specifically what I am addressing.

On Jul 27, 8:22 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > So we can get new players just by "standardizing the game's > conventions"? Yup. If you make the game easier to understand, you make it easier to teach. It all comes down to a few factors: Confidence when giving a demo. Presenting the game in the fewest number of terms possible in order to minimize complications. Making it look interesting and fun. Keeping them involved after you hook them with a demo means presenting them with something that makes sense. Something that is CONSISTENT! If they see rules, card wording, and example play that seems to contradict what they've already been taught, there is disillusion. If they have to go to thre, four different places to find the answers, and the answers don't have internal consistency, they become one- starter-wonders. :( Anyone who knows the rules inside out, is intimate with the game's inner workings and timing, they're going to be great resources for these new players. Their confidence will inspire these new players to attend events, go to gatherings, and ask questions.

On Jul 27, 8:28 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > Specifically, I was addressing your point where you said " You make up > for the cost of printing foils, because you're saving on > the economy of scale for printing the normal run of very set from > that point on." Economies of Scale is a term used where you increase > the scale of your project (i.e. print more cards) and you make a high > profit because your fixed costs are spread out over more inventory. > That is how you flood the market. That is specifically what I am > addressing. And I was saying (and did again), that you can achieve economies of scale because you're printing more product, because your product is more popular. No need to shift into speculation. If you're only printing 100,000 units at a time now, and you see a 40% rise in demand, you can negotiate a better per-unit deal on your 140,000 units. No need to change anything your doing now.

[ quoted text not captured ] Except your costs are higher because you are printing foils. That is a change to what you are doing.

On Jul 27, 2:36 pm, Bill Ricardi <billrica...@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Jul 27, 8:22 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > > So we can get new players just by "standardizing the game's > > conventions"? > > Yup. If you make the game easier to understand, you make it easier to > teach. It all comes down to a few factors: Confidence when giving a > demo. Presenting the game in the fewest number of terms possible in > order to minimize complications. Making it look interesting and fun. > Anyone who knows the rules inside out, is intimate with the game's > inner workings and timing, they're going to be great resources for > these new players. Their confidence will inspire these new players to > attend events, go to gatherings, and ask questions. ...they are called "princes" You still didn't answer my questions. Could you give us some examples of how we would do that in VTES? Perhaps you could work up an outline and post it here. Could you give [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jul 27, 8:50 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > Yup. If you make the game easier to understand, you make it easier to > > teach. It all comes down to a few factors: Confidence when giving a > > demo. Presenting the game in the fewest number of terms possible in > > order to minimize complications. Making it look interesting and fun. > > Anyone who knows the rules inside out, is intimate with the game's > > inner workings and timing, they're going to be great resources for > > these new players. Their confidence will inspire these new players to > > attend events, go to gatherings, and ask questions. > > ...they are called "princes" Right now, they are called "nobody". Nobody has all of the timing rules memorized, because they're not all printed. New aspects are reveled when rulings are made, but they aren't necessarily internally consistent. Because a lot of the rulings are based on 'designer intent' currently, rather than a detailed timing and priority framework that is available to the public. > Could you give us some examples of how we would do that in VTES? > Perhaps you could work up an outline and post it here. Could you give > us some easy "low-hanging fruit" that we could get started with? Oh I can answer THOSE questions: No. I've given you the reasons why to do the project. I've detailed the first steps and even given examples on inconsistency. It isn't up to me any more. LSJ has been monitoring the thread, and if he likes the idea, he can bring it to the powers that be. He would most certainly take on part of the project, and I suspect that another full time employee or contractor would be needed for 12 to 15 months. I know someone who could do it, who is available, and who I've worked with before. LSJ also knows how to contact me if he wants that info. But I'm done with the pro bono stuff, sorry.

On Jul 27, 4:03 pm, Bill Ricardi <billrica...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Right now, they are called "nobody". What, people who know how to demo the game? We got plenty of those. > Nobody has all of the timing rules memorized, because they're not all > printed. What are you talking about? Timing in VTES is really easy. Either it is time for you to do something, or it isn't. There is very little ambiguity in timing in this game. > New aspects are reveled when rulings are made, but they > aren't necessarily internally consistent. Because a lot of the rulings > are based on 'designer intent' currently, rather than a detailed > timing and priority framework that is available to the public. Timing isn't an issue. I think you are imagining flaws where there are none. There are questions on how specific cards work, but any rulings on the specific cards are kept on the card database on the WW website. What kind of "timing" and "priority framework" are you talking about here? > But I'm done with the pro bono stuff, sorry. Thank goodness. -Peter

On Jul 27, 9:20 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > What are you talking about? Timing in VTES is really easy. Either it > is time for you to do something, or it isn't. There is very little > ambiguity in timing in this game. > Timing isn't an issue. I think you are imagining flaws where there are > none. There are questions on how specific cards work, but any rulings > on the specific cards are kept on the card database on the WW website. > What kind of "timing" and "priority framework" are you talking about > here? LSJ, please don't answer this. Soul Gem of Etrius - Unique equipment. If the vampire with this equipment is burned, draw the top vampire from your crypt. If that vampire is younger, put the Soul Gem on him or her and move him or her to your ready region with blood from the blood bank equal to his or her capacity; otherwise, move that vampire to your uncontrolled region (and burn the Soul Gem). If bearer is diablerized, the diablerizing vampire cannot take the Soul Gem. Tupdog - Sabbat. Tremere antitribu slave: Visceratika cards cost Tupdog 1 less blood to play. Tupdog may enter combat with any minion as a (D) action. Tupdogs are not unique. At the end of your minion phase, burn Tupdog and move the top card from your crypt to your uncontrolled region. Flight. Tupdog gets a skill card during master phase, and a Soul Gem during minion. He survives until the end of the minion phase. What happens? Is the 'end of the minion phase' a one time event that only triggers one series of events? Or is it a period at the end of of the minion phase that can spawn multiple iterations of 'end of minion phase' triggers as they occur? And whatever the answer is, where in the rule book does it explain this phase cleanup process? Peter D Bakija, this one's for you. I'm particularly interested in where you find the answer to this in the official VTES rulebook.

[ quoted text not captured ] Oh, OK, I won't cheat. My crypt is full of Tupdogs, that's why this matters. I was going to be mean, but I can't do it. Too kind hearted. :)

On Jul 27, 4:37 pm, Bill Ricardi <billrica...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Tupdog gets a skill card during master phase, and a Soul Gem during > minion. He survives until the end of the minion phase. What happens? Ask a hard one, maybe? -witness1

On 27 jul, 14:55, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Dragos wrote: > >> Heh. Foils wouldn't increase rarity, don't worry. :) > > > Ya, but then I would have to get a regular AND a foil (if I understand > > correctly how it works - never played/collected other CCGs). > > You only have to get a regular AND a foil if you happen to want both. > > As far as playing the game goes, a foil offers no benefit over a regular > version, so you only "need" the regular. Hm...well if one "collects" the cards (meaning, have at least qty=1 of each printed card in a given set) he would want to have both, which is my case...

[ quoted text not captured ] It is at the end of the Minion Phase, which is still during the Minion Phase. Burn the tupdog. Draw a vampire from your crypt.This triggers the soul gem. Draw a vampire from your crypt. If that vampire is younger, put the Soul Gem on him or her and move him or her to your ready region with blood from the blood bank equal to his or her capacity; otherwise, move that vampire to your uncontrolled region (and burn the Soul Gem). End of Minion Phase can be ordered as the Metheselah whose turn it is choses, but in this case there is no choice. The tupdog burns which triggers the Soul Gem. Players can order simultaneous effects as they like. Do you have any more questions?

Bill Ricardi <billr...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Soul Gem of Etrius - Unique equipment. If the vampire with this > equipment is burned, draw the top vampire from your crypt. If that > vampire is younger, put the Soul Gem on him or her and move him or her > to your ready region with blood from the blood bank equal to his or > her capacity; otherwise, move that vampire to your uncontrolled region > (and burn the Soul Gem). If bearer is diablerized, the diablerizing > vampire cannot take the Soul Gem. > Tupdog - Sabbat. Tremere antitribu slave: Visceratika cards cost > Tupdog 1 less blood to play. Tupdog may enter combat with any minion > as a (D) action. Tupdogs are not unique. At the end of your minion > phase, burn Tupdog and move the top card from your crypt to your > uncontrolled region. Flight. > Tupdog gets a skill card during master phase, and a Soul Gem during > minion. He survives until the end of the minion phase. What happens? He burns. Then the active Methuselah may order the following 2 effects however he wants: Effect #1: The top card of the crypt is drawn for the Soul Gem's effect. If it's another 1-cap, it comes into the ready region. If that new vampire is a Tupdog, then it's still the end of the minion phase, so this new Tupdog burns and the Soul Gem triggers again (which probably stops here because there are no zero-caps). Effect #2: The top card of the crypt is drawn for the Tupdog's effect.

On Jul 27, 9:40 pm, witness1 <jwnewqu...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > > Tupdog gets a skill card during master phase, and a Soul Gem during > > minion. He survives until the end of the minion phase. What happens? > > Ask a hard one, maybe? If you have an answer, let me know where in the rulebook you found it!

[ quoted text not captured ] Instead of playing your Skill Card, You could just play effective management, and ignore the Soul Gem trick altogether. It would have the same effect. Also a crypt full of Tupdogs isn't that scary, They are slaves. So you can do all the undirected actions that you like. The most effective is "Get Rock Cats" which while good is not that great.

On Jul 27, 9:51 pm, Jozxyqk <jfeue...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] So you're saying that the 'end of the minion phase' doesn't just happen once and stop, it is a period that lasts for as long as there are effects that trigger, even if they didn't trigger during the first check of 'end of phase'. Interesting. Where does it say that in the rule book?

[ quoted text not captured ] Don't care. We're talking about timing issues, those have nothing to do with timing. You seem to think that the 'end of phase' is a period that lasts, and it can trigger multiple stacks. Where in the rulebook did you find that interpretation of the end of a phase?

Bill Ricardi <billr...@googlemail.com> wrote: > So you're saying that the 'end of the minion phase' doesn't just > happen once and stop, it is a period that lasts for as long as there > are effects that trigger, even if they didn't trigger during the first > check of 'end of phase'. Interesting. Right. As long as there are lingering effects to mandatorily resolve in a timeslice, they must resolve. > Where does it say that in the rule book? It is not explicitly stated in the rule book, but the rule book points to the newsgroup and web and LSJ's email address as sources of answers to specific questions. This is not where you say "I gotcha!" It's just that the game isn't set up the way you want it to be.

On Jul 27, 10:02 pm, Jozxyqk <jfeue...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote: > Bill Ricardi <billrica...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > So you're saying that the 'end of the minion phase' doesn't just > > happen once and stop, it is a period that lasts for as long as there > > are effects that trigger, even if they didn't trigger during the first > > check of 'end of phase'. Interesting. > > Right. As long as there are lingering effects to mandatorily resolve in a timeslice, > they must resolve. I wonder if Peter will agree! > > Where does it say that in the rule book? > > It is not explicitly stated in the rule book, but the rule book points to the newsgroup > and web and LSJ's email address as sources of answers to specific questions. Well just to point you at Peter's statement to me: "What are you talking about? Timing in VTES is really easy. Either it is time for you to do something, or it isn't. There is very little ambiguity in timing in this game." "Timing isn't an issue. I think you are imagining flaws where there are none. There are questions on how specific cards work, but any rulings on the specific cards are kept on the card database on the WW website. What kind of "timing" and "priority framework" are you talking about here?" I would say if I have to E-mail someone to get an answer to timing rather than just looking it up in the rules... then timing is somewhat ambiguous. I would say that I'm not just imagining that as a flaw. But I eagerly await Peter's (and other) answers to see if they're all the same. And if anyone finds an answer in the official VTES rulebook.

[ quoted text not captured ] It's your example. So you "Don't Care" about your own example. That is an asinine thing to say. The "end of phase" is just that, the end of the phase. Things that happen there, happen there. It has more to do with your grasp of the English language and simple reason. When did you learn what a "phase" is? All phases have beginnings and endings and occur in repetition. Such is their nature by definition (e.g. phases of the moon). It is self-defining.

On Jul 27, 1:56 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > James Coupe wrote: > > Bill Ricardi <billrica...@googlemail.com> wrote: > >> It's funny, when you actually start using facts and you prove your > >> point without resorting to to insults, people come around. > > > The bit where you accused a well-known, well-respected V:TES player of > > being a troll was your downfall, then. > > Oh? I thought it was just Josh. :-) Yeah, I think James probably meant to write "well-known, well- respected V:TES *artist.*" By the way, have you talked to the brass about using his lovely piece for an upcoming reprint of Deflection? :-) - D.J.

[ quoted text not captured ] I'll take card text for $1000, Alex. At the end of your minion phase (when all methuselahs have passed on playing effects during the minion phase), things that are triggered to happen at the end of the minion phase happen. You know it can't happen any sooner than this, because the minion phase can't end until all Methuselahs pass (implicit from 1.6.1.5). You also know that the "end of the minion phase" step can't be over until all effects that would happen then fully resolve (card text of those effects). So this is what happens, ordered as you wish among other effects with the same timing (it does appear to only be explicit in the rulebook that this is the case for the Master phase and the Untap phase): Tupdog burns (card text) triggering Soul Gem. Draw a card from your Crypt (Soul Gem's card text). IF it is younger, put it into play with blood from the bank equal to capacity (card text) ELSE move it to your uncontrolled region (card text) Draw a card from your crypt (Tupdog's card text) Now that you've fully resolved this effect, try to end the minion phase. If you find another "end of minion phase" effect, you'll have to resolve it first (card text of that effect). In your example, we've got another Tupdog in play per Soul Gem's card text, and we resolve it in the exact same manner as the first (card text). -witness1

Bill Ricardi <billr...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Well just to point you at Peter's statement to me: > "What are you talking about? Timing in VTES is really easy. Either it > is time for you to do something, or it isn't. There is very little > ambiguity in timing in this game." > "Timing isn't an issue. I think you are imagining flaws where there > are > none. There are questions on how specific cards work, but any rulings > on the specific cards are kept on the card database on the WW website. > What kind of "timing" and "priority framework" are you talking about > here?" > I would say if I have to E-mail someone to get an answer to timing > rather than just looking it up in the rules... then timing is somewhat > ambiguous. I would say that I'm not just imagining that as a flaw. What Peter said is still true. These sorts of timing issues can usually be worked out for yourself, because they're centered around English sentences. "End of minion phase" is not a keyword or a defined Phase of the game. It's just exactly what it says. "The end of the minion phase". But the online resources are available, if English is not your first language, or if you are confused about the rules, or if you found a new loophole or strange interaction of cards.

[ quoted text not captured ] That was your example. I didn't care about your example. Because your example had nothing to do with timing. Mine did. And the point we're trying to delve into is timing. > The "end of phase" is just that, the end of the phase. Things that > happen there, happen there. In some games, the end of phase triggers once, and all appropriate effects stack. The check of the 'end' is then done, because there is only one end before the next phase starts. In other games, the end of phase is actually a transitional period, so you can create multiple stacks in that period and anything that comes into being during that time that triggers off of the 'end of phase' mechanic continues to trigger. The VTES rulebook doesn't say which is the case, as far as I can tell! > When did you learn what a "phase" is? All phases have beginnings and > endings and occur in repetition. Such is their nature by definition > (e.g. phases of the moon). I'm an E.E. Phase means something very different to me. In fact, this could bring up an example of 'edge triggering' but that has way too many VTES terms and has absolutely nothing to do with those terms, so I won't confuse things. Needless to say, phase has many meanings.

[ quoted text not captured ] It was your example regardless of what you try to say now. > The VTES rulebook doesn't say which is the case, as far as I can tell! The end of the phase is just that the end of the phase. > > When did you learn what a "phase" is? All phases have beginnings and > > endings and occur in repetition. Such is their nature by definition > > (e.g. phases of the moon). > > I'm an E.E. Phase means something very different to me. In fact, this > could bring up an example of 'edge triggering' but that has way too > many VTES terms and has absolutely nothing to do with those terms, so > I won't confuse things. Needless to say, phase has many meanings. You are confused. It is quite simple and you are trying, unsuccessfully, to make it complicated.

On Jul 27, 9:19 pm, Bill Ricardi <billrica...@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Jul 27, 8:07 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > > The "you" in his statement has an obvious, sense-staying meaning. > > You know, I have a new appreciation for what you deal with. Oooooh, implied mass insult!!! Exp +23...

Let me put this another way, Bill. If you're learning to play VTES in a vacuum, where you have no internet and no contact with other experienced players, you will do things wrong. You will misinterpret the rules, and you will develop house rules for things you don't like. This will happen with almost _any_ CCG. But in that case, it doesn't matter if you have the rules correct or not. If you want to play with "experienced" groups, we are all very willing to teach the ropes and allow you to make mistakes, etc... By the way, the rulebook has some rules in it which people commonly don't even play by. Specifically, the deckbuilding rules in the rulebook are not what most groups use. Most groups use a flat "60-90" rather than what it says in there.

[ quoted text not captured ] Elder, the Mountain is willing to annihilate any sparkly twinkly kindred wannabes for 1/3 the usual rate for you, as a personal favour...

[ quoted text not captured ] So you're also saying that the end of a phase checks multiple times, even looking at cards that entered play AFTER the 'end of phase' started. Despite you saying 'You also know that the "end of the minion phase" step can't be over until all effects that would happen then fully resolve (card text of those effects).', nothing in the card text actually says that is the case! Nothing in the rule book says that you re-check cleanup effects after the first clean up has triggered. Why should a card that entered play AFTER 'end of phase' started trigger a re-sweep? Does this happen every time a card enters play during a clean-up period? Where does it say that in the rules? You pointed out that effects can be ordered as you choose (which doesn't matter in this case, but is interesting) during the Master and Untap phase. Why not the other phases? Should we just apply it to all phases because this is 'implicit'? It doesn't really matter what the answers are by the way. Just an interesting question to establish if the end of a phase is a single trigger or can spawn multiple stacks. Even more interesting is that if it works the way you said it does, then there are certain implications to the beginnings of phases as well. But that's for later.

Soul Gem of Etrius - Unique equipment. If the vampire with this equipment is burned, draw the top vampire from your crypt. If that vampire is younger, put the Soul Gem on him or her and move him or her to your ready region with blood from the blood bank equal to his or her capacity; otherwise, move that vampire to your uncontrolled region (and burn the Soul Gem). If bearer is diablerized, the diablerizing vampire cannot take the Soul Gem. Tupdog - Sabbat. Tremere antitribu slave: Visceratika cards cost Tupdog 1 less blood to play. Tupdog may enter combat with any minion as a (D) action. Tupdogs are not unique. At the end of your minion phase, burn Tupdog and move the top card from your crypt to your uncontrolled region. Flight. Tupdog gets a skill card during master phase, and a Soul Gem during minion. He survives until the end of the minion phase. What happens? Is the 'end of the minion phase' a one time event that only triggers one series of events? Or is it a period at the end of of the minion phase that can spawn multiple iterations of 'end of minion phase' triggers as they occur? And whatever the answer is, where in the rule book does it explain this phase cleanup process? Peter D Bakija, this one's for you. I'm particularly interested in where you find the answer to this in the official VTES rulebook. Reply Reply to author Forward You must Sign in before you can post messages. To post a message you must first join this group. Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting. You do not have the permission required to post. Bill Ricardi View profile More options Jul 27, 9:39 pm Newsgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad From: Bill Ricardi <billrica...@googlemail.com> Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 13:39:39 -0700 (PDT) Local: Mon, Jul 27 2009 9:39 pm Subject: Re: Why was V:TES online stopped ? Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Remove | Report this message | Find messages by this author On Jul 27, 9:37 pm, Bill Ricardi <billrica...@googlemail.com> wrote: - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - > On Jul 27, 9:20 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > > What are you talking about? Timing in VTES is really easy. Either it > > is time for you to do something, or it isn't. There is very little > > ambiguity in timing in this game. > > Timing isn't an issue. I think you are imagining flaws where there are > > none. There are questions on how specific cards work, but any rulings > > on the specific cards are kept on the card database on the WW website. > > What kind of "timing" and "priority framework" are you talking about > > here? Hey LSJ, what is your ruling on this, and would you agree that the timing of this (and other things) is not covered in the official VTES rulebook? Soul Gem of Etrius - Unique equipment. If the vampire with this equipment is burned, draw the top vampire from your crypt. If that vampire is younger, put the Soul Gem on him or her and move him or her to your ready region with blood from the blood bank equal to his or her capacity; otherwise, move that vampire to your uncontrolled region (and burn the Soul Gem). If bearer is diablerized, the diablerizing vampire cannot take the Soul Gem. Tupdog - Sabbat. Tremere antitribu slave: Visceratika cards cost Tupdog 1 less blood to play. Tupdog may enter combat with any minion as a (D) action. Tupdogs are not unique. At the end of your minion phase, burn Tupdog and move the top card from your crypt to your uncontrolled region. Flight. Tupdog gets a skill card during master phase, and a Soul Gem during minion. He survives until the end of the minion phase. My crypt is full of Tupdogs. What happens? [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Ok, one step at a time. 1) It is the end of your minion phase. You are choosing to define this as a single point in time. it is not. It is part of a phase, and the end of it. However long the end needs to be, it is still just the end. It could be called the Rumplestiltkin Grand Poobah, and it would still be the same thing. 2) You are under a mistaken impression that VtES has a FILO system. It does not. It has a "This card resolves instantly, except for a very small number of effects that are stated as such on said cards." This means any effect that is a continuous check (eg end of turn, combat, action, phase) will trigger instantly. (I cannot think of an effect that does not require a card to be played that can be interrupted. any corrections here please?) Cards which last or get played at the end of combat can be played untill both players pass impulse, AND until all checks that exist have been made. Remember, those checks are continuous state checks, not entry exit point checks. So while you are in the end of minion phase state, all cards that exist during the entire end of minion phase period must obey card text. > You pointed out that effects can be ordered as you choose (which > doesn't matter in this case, but is interesting) during the Master and > Untap phase. Why not the other phases? Should we just apply it to all > phases because this is 'implicit'? He did not explicitly point it out, true. However, the same holds true for all phases, this is just an easier way to explain, as the most common of these types of checks happen during the master and untap phase > > It doesn't really matter what the answers are by the way. Just an > interesting question to establish if the end of a phase is a single > trigger or can spawn multiple stacks. Even more interesting is that if > it works the way you said it does, then there are certain implications > to the beginnings of phases as well. But that's for later. It is not a trigger, it is a phase state switch. Try to get out of the strict linear time interpretation and look at slightly more fuzzily please?

On Jul 27, 5:33 pm, Bill Ricardi <billrica...@googlemail.com> wrote: > You pointed out that effects can be ordered as you choose (which > doesn't matter in this case, but is interesting) during the Master and > Untap phase. Why not the other phases? Should we just apply it to all > phases because this is 'implicit'? Okay. We'll go back to 1.6.1.5. After any effect happens, the Methuselah whose turn it is gets the next opportunity to play an effect. (By definition, If she has any mandatory effects, she must use one). Implicitly, a step can't end until all methuselahs have passed on their opportunity to play effects. -witness1

On Jul 27, 10:47 pm, Blooded Sand <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote: > 1) It is the end of your minion phase. You are choosing to define this > as a single point in time. it is not. It is part of a phase, and the > end of it. However long the end needs to be, it is still just the end. > It could be called the Rumplestiltkin Grand Poobah, and it would still > be the same thing. I didn't 'choose to define it as anything'. In fact, I specifically gave two examples: In one it checked a single time, and in the other it was a period that was as long as it needs to be. I never gave any opinion of how this situation should work. Either way. Never stated how I think it should work at all. I don't know where you read that I gave an opinion of how this situation works, but you're incorrect. > > You pointed out that effects can be ordered as you choose (which > > doesn't matter in this case, but is interesting) during the Master and > > Untap phase. Why not the other phases? Should we just apply it to all > > phases because this is 'implicit'? > > He did not explicitly point it out, true. However, the same holds true > for all phases, this is just an easier way to explain, as the most > common of these types of checks happen during the master and untap > phase I'm not saying that it should or should not work this way. I'm just pointing out that the rulebook has gaps. > > It doesn't really matter what the answers are by the way. Just an > > interesting question to establish if the end of a phase is a single > > trigger or can spawn multiple stacks. Even more interesting is that if > > it works the way you said it does, then there are certain implications > > to the beginnings of phases as well. But that's for later. > > It is not a trigger, it is a phase state switch. Try to get out of the > strict linear time interpretation and look at slightly more fuzzily > please? I never said it was a trigger. I in fact, in that very same sentence, mentioned the possibility of it spawning multiple stacks, your 'phase state switch' scenario. I am utterly neutral as to what the actual answer is. I don't know why you think I gave some opinion either way. The fact that the rulebook doesn't cover the general way that these things should work is the important matter. I don't care what the answer to the question is, I care how people GOT the answer. Because it isn't covered in the rule book.

[ quoted text not captured ] Well this is usually quite well dealt with by "nobodies." They are otherwise known as Princes. This is not to mention a large number of friendly, knowledgeable, helpful players.

Bill Ricardi wrote: > Johann von Doom <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Or they simply stopped replying to you after you demonstrated your >> ignorance, which isn't at all the same thing. > > Or I covered every topic that came up fully, including examples. It's > funny, when you actually start using facts and you prove your point > without resorting to to insults, people come around. You mean like when you insulted White Wolf by saying they don't take V:TES seriously? You mean like that? Pot. Kettle. Black. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/

On Jul 27, 11:26 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > You mean like when you insulted White Wolf by saying they don't > take V:TES seriously? You mean like that? You aren't working for White Wolf, and I have yet to hear from a member of White Wolf staff, full time or contract, that says they're insulted by anything I say. In fact, I have yet to hear any member of White Wolf staff deny anything I've said. I've done a lot of free stuff for companies throughout the CCG industry, in the form of beta testing, free publicity in Scrye and Inquest, etc. I'm going to have my opinions, and most people in the industry don't begrudge me that. If they're insulted and they say something, I'll tell them I'm sorry and I didn't want any hard feelings. But none of them have. And if they did, its between me and them.

[ quoted text not captured ] I want a Rumplestiltskin Grand Poobah phase!!! :(``` Year of Straw to Gold Political Action +1 stealth Choose any number of Methuselahs who have not been chosen previously for a Year of Straw to Gold. If this referendum is successful, put this card in play and the chosen Methuselah's gain a Rumplestiltskin Grand Poobah Phase.

[ quoted text not captured ] Can only be played off of a Malkavian Rider Clause! =)

Bill Ricardi wrote: > On Jul 27, 8:22 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > >> So we can get new players just by "standardizing the game's >> conventions"? > > Yup. If you make the game easier to understand, you make it easier to > teach. It all comes down to a few factors: Confidence when giving a > demo. Presenting the game in the fewest number of terms possible in > order to minimize complications. Making it look interesting and fun. > > Keeping them involved after you hook them with a demo means presenting > them with something that makes sense. Something that is CONSISTENT! If > they see rules, card wording, and example play that seems to > contradict what they've already been taught, there is disillusion. If > they have to go to thre, four different places to find the answers, > and the answers don't have internal consistency, they become one- > starter-wonders. :( > > Anyone who knows the rules inside out, is intimate with the game's > inner workings and timing, they're going to be great resources for > these new players. Their confidence will inspire these new players to > attend events, go to gatherings, and ask questions. This is not actually directed at Bill, but at everyone else in this thread, specifically my internet pals Peter, Kevin, Josh, Norm, et al.; a group I would characterize as the grand-ol' farts (in a loving way) of the Newsgroup. Eric Jome recently came on here with a very similar question about the rules. At that time he was pretty roundly disagreed with; and slightly it seemed to me condescended to as "you'll get the rules eventually, just play some more." The discussion starts here: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/c9b12c12871dd91c?hl=en But his core question was only directly responded to by Ian Lee (Bill's friend ironically, or not) - that the game's extensive card set, organically created by several designers over 15 years, and the rules set, molded through time, mostly by LSJ, are very dense and hard to get into by those who aren't lucky enough to have a hardcore playgroup nearby. This stymies growth. I do think it would be good as Bill is suggesting to standardize terms/effects/timing. I'm not sure it's benefits outweigh it's cost. However, there are some glaring low-hanging fruit that could be fixed ASAP. For instance, "before range is chosen" is on some 25% of combat cards - it clearly is a timing window. However, it isn't referenced in the rules as a phase at all. Create a timing phase: Pre-Range. And then all cards in the future that can be played in that phase merely say "Pre-Range" on them. Instead of "play before range is chosen". "Pre-Strike" etc etc. Yes, we can use "plain English" to read the cards and understand them. But by the number of posts requesting rulings on this newsgroup, it seems clear to me that "plain English" doesn't go all the way in describing how cards interact. In fact, one of English's charms is that it is fraught with ambiguity. "Ceci n'est pas une pipe" indeed! best - chris

On Jul 27, 5:09 pm, Bill Ricardi <billrica...@googlemail.com> wrote: > I wonder if Peter will agree! Yes, I will. > Well just to point you at Peter's statement to me: > > "What are you talking about? Timing in VTES is really easy. Either it > is time for you to do something, or it isn't. There is very little > ambiguity in timing in this game." > > "Timing isn't an issue. I think you are imagining flaws where there > are > none. There are questions on how specific cards work, but any rulings > on the specific cards are kept on the card database on the WW website. > What kind of "timing" and "priority framework" are you talking about > here?" > > I would say if I have to E-mail someone to get an answer to timing > rather than just looking it up in the rules... then timing is somewhat > ambiguous. I would say that I'm not just imagining that as a flaw. > > But I eagerly await Peter's (and other) answers to see if they're all > the same. And if anyone finds an answer in the official VTES rulebook. In any situation where things need to be ordered in a given phase, the player gets to order them. If you have multiple "untap" effects (other than physically untapping things, as that specifically happens first), you do them in any order, as long as they all get done. The same with "end of turn" effects. In the situation you presented, you order your end of (whatever phase it is) effects and go through them as appropriate. Tupdog burns and hands over Soul Gem. New Tupdog hits play with Soul Gem. New Tupdog burns, hands over Soul Gem. Soul Gem fails to work. Chain ends. I'm not quite sure where there is a timing issue here. It is either time for something to happen, or it isn't. -Peter

On Jul 27, 7:17 pm, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > I do think it would be good as Bill is suggesting to standardize > terms/effects/timing. I'm not sure it's benefits outweigh it's cost. > However, there are some glaring low-hanging fruit that could be fixed ASAP. Oh, I don't disagree that wording could be tidied up some. I just disagree that there are vast timing issues in this game that wreak havoc. -Peter

On Jul 27, 4:17 pm, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > But his core question was only directly responded to by Ian Lee (Bill's > friend ironically, or not) - that the game's extensive card set, > organically created by several designers over 15 years, and the rules > set, molded through time, mostly by LSJ, are very dense and hard to get > into by those who aren't lucky enough to have a hardcore playgroup > nearby. This stymies growth. Catching up on this thread was painful. Not that that was surprising. I know I mentioned it in my blog but likely not on the NG. I had the hardest time wrapping my head around "best practices". At first, I wondered whether it referred to something specific. Then, after reading some, I couldn't figure out how "best practices" was any different from just "do it right". Wasn't long ago, while thinking about CCGs, that I think I finally got it. A good way to think of "best practices" is "steal all of your competitors good ideas and eschew all of their bad ones". I've been through way too many wars with too many CCGs to care what CCG companies do anymore. But, where Bill's thinking comes from is the idea of how you make the game more popular and more profitable. Looking around at what your competitors have done seems rational. Doesn't mean their ideas translate, but I don't understand the eagerness to write off what more successful companies do. Some people are good with the status quo. But, also, some aren't. The game may be popular enough in some people's areas, but it's nowhere near as popular here as it once was. While D.C. seems to be getting back some old players, in recent years, it hasn't been nearly as thriverrific as it once was. NoCal and SoCal don't interact much, but my understanding is that there used to be 20+ people playing in Mike's garage and that dropped to like 7 for a while. I'm not seeing what it hurts to consider ideas for making the game more popular. Whether there's low hanging fruit or not doesn't change that it's possible to do things differently. I'm always ... never mind, it's not even worth bothering to go into why people view Magic the way they do. They do, for whatever reasons. But, for all of the worry over the Magicification of the game, bunch of suggestions for changes have nothing to do with Magic. CCGs had rarity indicators at least 2 years before Magic did. As for foils ... Let's see, Magic introduced foils in 1999. There's at least one CCG that had foils in 1996 or earlier that ... let me see ... was printed by White Wolf, set in the World of Darkness, and involved players bringing out monsters who did votelike things and beat the crap out of each other. If you want to argue that foils hurt Rage's popularity and sales, great. But, the fact that people don't know what they are talking about is a very good reason not to have 100+ post threads on newsgroups like this thread.

On Jul 28, 2:09 am, Curevei <Cure...@aol.com> wrote: > Wasn't long ago, while thinking about CCGs, that I think I finally got > it. A good way to think of "best practices" is "steal all of your > competitors good ideas and eschew all of their bad ones". Amen. > I've been through way too many wars with too many CCGs to care what > CCG companies do anymore. But, where Bill's thinking comes from is > the idea of how you make the game more popular and more profitable. > Looking around at what your competitors have done seems rational. > Doesn't mean their ideas translate, but I don't understand the > eagerness to write off what more successful companies do. Not to mention that good housekeeping is just smart. If you ever want to sell the game on, you'll get the most money for it if it's in good shape, with the minimum amount of upkeep required by the new owner. Which is good for the player base, of course, since an easy-to- maintain IP is more likely to be continued and expanded on than a pain in the ass IP. > CCGs had rarity indicators at least 2 years before Magic did. As for > foils ... A favorite of yours, if I'm not mistaken, Ultimate Combat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_Combat! > Let's see, Magic introduced foils in 1999. There's at least one CCG > that had foils in 1996 or earlier that ... let me see ... was printed > by White Wolf, set in the World of Darkness, and involved players > bringing out monsters who did votelike things and beat the crap out of > each other. If you want to argue that foils hurt Rage's popularity > and sales, great. But, the fact that people don't know what they are > talking about is a very good reason not to have 100+ post threads on > newsgroups like this thread. You totally stole my Rage punchline. I was saving that! :(

On Jul 27, 6:17 pm, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > > For instance, "before range is chosen" is on some 25% of combat cards - > it clearly is a timing window. However, it isn't referenced in the > rules as a phase at all. Create a timing phase: Pre-Range. And then > all cards in the future that can be played in that phase merely say > "Pre-Range" on them. Instead of "play before range is chosen". > "Pre-Strike" etc etc. > Yeah, it can work that way, if you want the game to work more like Magic. But V:TES doesn't have all these defined time-slices. It has phrases on the card that describe a time when you can play them or what triggers the opportunity to play them. I, for one, *hate* it when people try to enumerate the time-slices in combat, i.e., "about to enter combat", "before range is determined", "determine range", "before strikes", "strike declaration", "before handling strikes", etc., etc., etc. These sub-phases do not exist. There *are* some defined sub-phases, i.e. determine range, strike declaration, handle strikes, press phase, etc... but cards aren't playable in strict sub- phases and time-slices. They are playable at certain times within those subphases and before them and after them. Every time some jerk enumerates the time-slices, there comes around a card that is playable at a different time, and that's OK - you don't have to go an add another step to the enumeration. Because a) Jyhad is not Magic, nor much like it, and b) because it doesn't conform to nor have to conform to some machine-parseable timing and wording. Not only that, but trying to fit things into these slices, while it may make it easier to understand for a machine, doesn't make it easier to understand for a human. I am perfectly capable of understanding what "after range, but before strikes are chosen" means, without having to put it in the rulebook as another subphase. That subphase doesn't actually exist, outside of cards that happen during that time. Adding a defined timing window is *more* confusing because now you have all these subphases where 99% of the time nothing is played. It's the same Wrong and Crosswise thinking that led to there being an "end of minion phase phase", wherein Madness Network actions happened and Rutor's Hand could untap an empty vampire who wouldn't then have to hunt (even if there was no Madness Network in play). The rules exist as one thing and cards exist that break the rules in various ways. But the existence of a particular card, while it may require rulings to clarify it, should not, in itself create new generalized rules like Madness Network was defined to do until it was fixed. This is why I dislike the idea of trying to codify all the V:TES cards and rules like Magic has done (aside from the fact that it will never fucking happen... ;) ). Magic has defined phases: Untap, Upkeep, Draw, Main Phase (before combat), Combat (declare attackers), Combat (declare blockers), Combat (resolution), Main Phase (after combat), Discard. I may have missed like *a* phase, or misnamed one or added one that doesn't exist. But the point is, those are the times when things are played. Sorcery-speed effects are only allowed during your own Main Phase. All effects are handled LIFO, interrupts being the exception (and cost-pay effects, I guess - I assume there was a ruling on that sometime after I left the game ages ago, but it makes sense). All-in-all, it may be complicated, but it is a rigid timing system, with time-slices very strictly defined. If you divided a V:TES turn into a hundred time-slices, you might cover all possible card-plays. Until another card was printed...

The "half-way house" of both these positions is something that is basically done already: Standardised Phrases. More could be done with them, but that is mostly going back through older cards and putting the Errata-Pen to them. The obvious "standardised phrases" are: Only usable by a X Only usable during your X Only usable before X During X, you may [thing] to [effect] When [event] occurs [effect]... They turn up all over the place. I would love it if new cards came out with almost rigid "standard phrases". Also if there were standard phrases that made effects such as Maris Streck a little clearer like: "Once during an action, Maris may burn X blood to give a vampire +X intercept" or something to that effect... generalised to "[X times] during [event], [Vamp] may [cost] to [effect]" and leading to... Once during an action, CheeseBleed may tap and burn X blood to give the acting minion +X bleed.

On Jul 27, 5:58 pm, Bill Ricardi <billrica...@googlemail.com> wrote: > The fact that the rulebook doesn't cover the general way that these > things should work is the important matter. I don't care what the > answer to the question is, I care how people GOT the answer. Because > it isn't covered in the rule book. Timing in V:tES is easy: play an effect or pass (with pass being disallowed any time you have a mandatory effect). Any time an effect is played, the next opportunity to play an effect is given to the acting player. While I can't object to cleaning up the wording or making things more explicit, it's definitely covered in the rulebook. -witness1

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >James Coupe wrote: >> Bill Ricardi <billr...@googlemail.com> wrote: >>> NOBODY wants foils is what you said. >> You appear to have taken leave of your senses. I didn't write that. > ><sigh> > >The "you" in his statement has an obvious, sense-staying meaning. Obvious, sense-staying meanings are precisely what Bill is arguing for us not to use. We have to use comprehensively standardized, machine- parseable language or no-one will ever buy V:TES! -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

On Jul 28, 6:01 am, witness1 <jwnewqu...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > Timing in V:tES is easy: play an effect or pass (with pass being > disallowed any time you have a mandatory effect). Any time an effect > is played, the next opportunity to play an effect is given to the > acting player. While I can't object to cleaning up the wording or > making things more explicit, it's definitely covered in the rulebook. This has nothing, and I mean nothing to do with the example given. There was no play-or-pass involved when any of the undocumented timing issues came up, the game itself was in the pilot seat.

[ quoted text not captured ] Uh huh. Which makes it easy. 10 Are there any mandatory events that need to occur? 20 If yes, goto 10 30 Does the actor pass the impulse? 40 If no goto 30. 50 End Pretty simple really.....

On Jul 28, 8:33 am, Blooded Sand <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote: > 10 Are there any mandatory events that need to occur? > 20 If yes, goto 10 > 30 Does the actor pass the impulse? > 40 If no goto 30. > 50 End We'll get that in the rulebook right away.

On Jul 27, 9:09 pm, Curevei <Cure...@aol.com> wrote: > Let's see, Magic introduced foils in 1999. There's at least one CCG > that had foils in 1996 or earlier that ... let me see ... was printed > by White Wolf, set in the World of Darkness, and involved players > bringing out monsters who did votelike things and beat the crap out of > each other. If you want to argue that foils hurt Rage's popularity > and sales, great. But, the fact that people don't know what they are > talking about is a very good reason not to have 100+ post threads on > newsgroups like this thread. Who doesn't know what they are talking about? Are there people in this thread saying "Nothing had foil cards in 1996!"? (well, there might be, but I haven't seen them doing that). They are saying "VTES doesn't need foil cards". Which is a different issue completely. Yes. Rage had foil chase cards. And Rage sucked. A lot. And the foil chase cards were a big part of why Rage sucked. I mean, yeah, they probably could have engineered the game such that the foil chase cards *didn't* make the game suck. But they didn't. And they did. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] The game is never in the pilot seat. The player in your example had one (mandatory) effect to play. He played it, and when he was done, the next opportunity to play an effect or pass came to him. Passing was not allowed because he still had a mandatory effect. Player continues to choose effects until passing becomes an option for and is selected by all methuselahs. All timing events in VTES use this mechanism, except as noted by other card or rule text (polling during a referendum and bidding on vampires come to mind). -witness1

On Jul 28, 1:54 pm, witness1 <jwnewqu...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > The player in your example had one (mandatory) effect to play. He > played it, and when he was done, the next opportunity to play an > effect or pass came to him. Passing was not allowed because he still > had a mandatory effect. Player continues to choose effects until > passing becomes an option for and is selected by all methuselahs. Wonderful! However the rulebook discuses 'mandatory' in a single paragraph. It is mentioned 7 times in that paragraph, and always refers to actions. It never mention mandatory 'effects' other than actions. The words 'mandatory effect' never appear in the rulebook, nor do they appear in the card text that generates such effects. You do understand that I know how the game works, and throughout the entire thread I've been pointing out the failings in the rulebook, right? I've never once disputed how the game works, simply how the game is documented. Which is the entire point.

[ quoted text not captured ] This case is just documented in English (descriptive card text). If you must do something in a given time frame, then it follows quite easily that you cannot "pass" (saying "I'm ready to move on to the next time frame") without having done that thing.

Bill Ricardi <billr...@googlemail.com> wrote: > You do understand that I know how the game works, and throughout the > entire thread I've been pointing out the failings in the rulebook, > right? I've never once disputed how the game works, simply how the > game is documented. Which is the entire point. And you took the correct action, which is to request clarification from an online resource. And you got a satisfactory answer. How is that really different from searching through a 500k text document, when you really have no idea how a basic mechanic works?

On Jul 28, 10:15 am, Bill Ricardi <billrica...@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Jul 28, 1:54 pm, witness1 <jwnewqu...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > The player in your example had one (mandatory) effect to play. He > > played it, and when he was done, the next opportunity to play an > > effect or pass came to him. Passing was not allowed because he still > > had a mandatory effect. Player continues to choose effects until > > passing becomes an option for and is selected by all methuselahs. > > Wonderful! > > However the rulebook discuses 'mandatory' in a single paragraph. It is > mentioned 7 times in that paragraph, and always refers to actions. It > never mention mandatory 'effects' other than actions. The words > 'mandatory effect' never appear in the rulebook, nor do they appear in > the card text that generates such effects. At least we're past arguing that the timing window isn't elucidated by the rulebook. In English, the imperative form "Do X" implies that X is not optional. Mandatory actions are called out in the rulebook because they specify an exception to the normal timing rules in that a methuselah is required to perform those actions before any non-mandatory actions (unlike other mandatory effects, which can be interlaced with non- mandatory effects). > You do understand that I know how the game works, and throughout the > entire thread I've been pointing out the failings in the rulebook, > right? I've never once disputed how the game works, simply how the > game is documented. Which is the entire point. You do understand I'm not against improving the documentation, right? It just turns out that the game is not so poorly documented as you earlier asserted. -witness1

On Jul 28, 3:41 pm, witness1 <jwnewqu...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > In English, the imperative form "Do X" implies that X is not optional. > Mandatory actions are called out in the rulebook because they specify > an exception to the normal timing rules in that a methuselah is > required to perform those actions before any non-mandatory actions > (unlike other mandatory effects, which can be interlaced with non- > mandatory effects). Wonderful. The rulebook still does not mention mandatory effects.

[ quoted text not captured ] No, but it definitely mentions that cards always trump the rule book, and many cards have a "when x, then y" ie do this. Now when i tell my 3 yr old cousin "Do this!" he does it. He underatnds that the term "Do this" with no options means that he has to do this. Is this so hard to grasp?

On Jul 28, 4:11 pm, Blooded Sand <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote: > No, but it definitely mentions that cards always trump the rule book, > and many cards have a "when x, then y" ie do this. Now when i tell my > 3 yr old cousin "Do this!" he does it. He underatnds that the term "Do > this" with no options means that he has to do this. Is this so hard to > grasp? I 'underatnd' it perfectly. My point stands. If there is time to play an optional effect in between mandatory effects at the end of a phase, that should be documented. If you are forced to allow all mandatory effects at the end of a phase to resolve before playing an optional effect at the end of a phase, that should be documented. If you are not allowed to play any optional effects other than ones triggered by mandatory effects at the end of a phase, that should be documented. Because the rulebook only talks about mandatory actions, and the cards do not mandate the timing of mandatory effects nor their interaction with optional effects. If they behave exactly the same as actions, the rulebook should state it.

Bill Ricardi wrote: > My point stands. If there is time to play an optional effect in > between mandatory effects at the end of a phase, that should be > documented. On the contrary, only if that is not the case would it need to be documented (like mandatory actions are). > If you are forced to allow all mandatory effects at the > end of a phase to resolve before playing an optional effect at the end > of a phase, that should be documented. True. But you aren't. > If you are not allowed to play > any optional effects other than ones triggered by mandatory effects at > the end of a phase, that should be documented. True. But you are. > Because the rulebook only talks about mandatory actions, and the cards > do not mandate the timing of mandatory effects nor their interaction > with optional effects. If they behave exactly the same as actions, the > rulebook should state it. True. But they don't.

[ quoted text not captured ] The cards tell you when an effect can be played (regardless of whether they're mandatory or optional). The rulebook tells you how to sequence effects that are to be played at the same time (regardless of whether they're mandatory or optional). When there's an exception to those rules, the rulebook spells it out (mandatory actions, polling). The only thing not explicitly spelled out is that if you have to do something, you can't pass. That shouldn't need to be spelled out, but there's also no problem with spelling it out (except maybe packaging considerations related to the size of the rulebook). -witness1

[ quoted text not captured ] To update everyone, I asked this in the LSJ ruling thread: "The first Tupdog burns, bringing out a second Tupdog with a soul gem on him. I then Heidelberg the Soul Gem and the blood to another minion as an optional effect (since this is not during an action)." And I have a feeling that this thread is going to be superseded by the other one, given the example's complex precedents, so anyone interested might want to pop over there.

Bill Ricardi wrote: > "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >> You mean like when you insulted White Wolf by saying they don't >> take V:TES seriously? You mean like that? > > You aren't working for White Wolf, and I have yet to hear from a > member of White Wolf staff, full time or contract, that says they're > insulted by anything I say. Perhaps because they have better things to do then to feed a troll? > In fact, I have yet to hear any member of White Wolf staff deny > anything I've said. I've done a lot of free stuff for companies > throughout the CCG industry, in the form of beta testing, free > publicity in Scrye and Inquest, etc. I'm going to have my opinions, > and most people in the industry don't begrudge me that. Awww Poor Bill! No one recognizes you, so you have to keep trotting out all your awesomeness! :'( But this thread isn't all about you, Bill! No it isn't! LOLL! > If they're insulted and they say something, I'll tell them I'm sorry > and I didn't want any hard feelings. But none of them have. And if > they did, its between me and them. Not when you put it in a public forum, it isn't. LOLL! Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/

Bill Ricardi wrote: > On Jul 27, 7:43 pm, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >> Bill Ricardi <billrica...@googlemail.com> wrote: >>> On Jul 27, 6:51 pm, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >>>> Bill Ricardi <billrica...@googlemail.com> wrote: >>>>> Nobody CURRENTLY wants foils or chase rares because.. THEY DON'T >>>>> EXIST! Shocker! >> >>>> In fact, these discussions have been had before and quite a few >>>> people have voiced the opinion that they couldn't honestly care if >>>> White Wolf added them to the game. >> >>> That's nice. It also wasn't the statement I was replying to. This >>> was: >> >>>> First of all, this proves to me that you really don't understand >>>> VTES. Nobody wants foils or "chase" rares.. and while marking of >>>> rarity would be nice, rarity does not correspond to power in this >>>> game unlike others. >> >>> NOBODY wants foils is what you said. >> >> You appear to have taken leave of your senses. I didn't write that. > > I've used the collective 'you' to mean 'those who claim there is no > demand for foils'. If you don't want to be grouped in with that cabal, > perhaps you shouldn't have quoted from that particular thread and then > taken up the same banner. Perhaps you should learn to use your newsreader properly, and to quote threads properly, since your > characters indicated that James said something he never said. Nice try, though. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Actually, he introduced the quote properly.

[ quoted text not captured ] Actually, he didn't, since he used the > characters to imply that James said something he didn't say (the "First of all..." quote, which was said by Peter Bakija and not James Coupe.) [ quoted text not captured ]

Kevin M. wrote: > LSJ wrote: >> Kevin M. wrote: >>>>> Bill Ricardi <billrica...@googlemail.com> wrote: >>>>>> That's nice. It also wasn't the statement I was replying to. This >>>>>> was: >>>>>>> First of all, this proves to me that you really don't understand >>>>>>> VTES. Nobody wants foils or "chase" rares.. and while marking of >>>>>>> rarity would be nice, rarity does not correspond to power in this >>>>>>> game unlike others. >>> Perhaps you should learn to use your newsreader properly, and to >>> quote threads properly, since your > characters indicated that James >>> said something he never said. >> Actually, he introduced the quote properly. > > Actually, he didn't, since he used the > characters to imply that > James said something he didn't say (the "First of all..." quote, which > was said by Peter Bakija and not James Coupe.) No. He used the > characters to quote the section of text he was quoting, which he introduced as "the statement I was replying to was:" Using quotes from multiple sources if fine. I've done it. So long as you properly introduce each quote, it works fine (assuming the reader can be bothered to read what you write).

Peter D Bakija wrote: > Yes. Rage had foil chase cards. And Rage sucked. A lot. And the foil > chase cards were a big part of why Rage sucked. I mean, yeah, they > probably could have engineered the game such that the foil chase cards > *didn't* make the game suck. But they didn't. And they did. I played Rage with a group of 20+ players for more than 2 years and I never heard a single player complain about foils in any way ever. So, I'd dispute your statement about foils being a "big part" of Rage sucking. From what I saw, the reason most players quit Rage was when the Umbra expansion came out, and you could escape combat way too easily; combat being the primary reason for the game's existence, the game then died almost instantly. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jul 28, 4:59 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > I played Rage with a group of 20+ players for more than 2 years and > I never heard a single player complain about foils in any way ever. So, > I'd dispute your statement about foils being a "big part" of Rage sucking. Holy crap, are you kidding me? The foil chase cards were the epitome of "completely unbalanced". They were (in the initial release--I didn't see many of the foil chase rares after the first set) incredibly powerful special abilities that you gave to your guys with absolutely zero cost other than "I happened to have the powerful chase foil rare". If you had them, you used them and got a huge advantage, with no added cost or disadvantage. If you didn't have them, you didn't use them. They were a *horrible* idea that were completely and wildly unbalanced. > From what I saw, the reason most players quit Rage was when the > Umbra expansion came out, and you could escape combat way too > easily; combat being the primary reason for the game's existence, the > game then died almost instantly. The game died 'cause it was a very badly designed game. I mean, it was funny. And I played some. And had a lot of really entertaining cards. But the concept of cost for effect and general game balance were completely alien to the design of Rage. Rare cards were just plain better than similar common cards. There were cards that cost the exact same thing where one was just flat more effective than others. There were the foil chase rares that were just incredibly powerful abilities that you got to use just 'cause you owned them. Rage was just all around bad. But the cool werewolf cards make for great deck box dividers! -Peter

Peter D Bakija wrote: > "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >> I played Rage with a group of 20+ players for more than 2 years and >> I never heard a single player complain about foils in any way ever. >> So, I'd dispute your statement about foils being a "big part" of >> Rage sucking. > > Holy crap, are you kidding me? The foil chase cards [snip] To be fair, it seemed like you were decrying the *foil* aspect of those cards (which is completely immaterial) as "foil" issues was the subject of Curvei's post, rather than the fact that they were extremely strong. >> From what I saw, the reason most players quit Rage was when the >> Umbra expansion came out, and you could escape combat way too >> easily; combat being the primary reason for the game's existence, the >> game then died almost instantly. > > The game died 'cause it was a very badly designed game. [snip] If it was so bad, why did so many players play it right up to Umbra? ;) [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Kev, I could swear you bowed out of this thread. Or was it the other one? ;)

Peter D Bakija wrote: > On Jul 27, 9:09 pm, Curevei <Cure...@aol.com> wrote: >> Let's see, Magic introduced foils in 1999. There's at least one CCG >> that had foils in 1996 or earlier that ... let me see ... was printed >> by White Wolf, set in the World of Darkness, and involved players >> bringing out monsters who did votelike things and beat the crap out of >> each other. If you want to argue that foils hurt Rage's popularity >> and sales, great. But, the fact that people don't know what they are >> talking about is a very good reason not to have 100+ post threads on >> newsgroups like this thread. > > Who doesn't know what they are talking about? Are there people in this > thread saying "Nothing had foil cards in 1996!"? (well, there might > be, but I haven't seen them doing that). They are saying "VTES doesn't > need foil cards". Which is a different issue completely. While I don't think it needs it, I wouldn't mind seeing foils in vtes. As long as they were just alternate versions of otherwise available cards (ie: if someone wasn't a collector, and was purely a deck builder, then the foil and the regular were freely interchangable and combined was just as 'rare' as any other card of the same rarity. or something). -- salem (replace 'hotmail' with 'gmail' to email)

Salem <kell...@hotmail.com> wrote: > As long as they were just alternate versions of otherwise available > cards (ie: if someone wasn't a collector, and was purely a deck builder, > then the foil and the regular were freely interchangable and combined > was just as 'rare' as any other card of the same rarity. or something). Just as a side note: The expansion symbol for the 10th anniversary tins was as close to "foil" as we've had.. and the "foil" flaked off pretty quickly from some of my 10th Anniv cards. That's another reason why I'm apprehensive about the whole foil concept, even if it otherwise "wouldn't affect" people who don't care about the shininess.

On Jul 29, 12:09 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > If it was so bad, why did so many players play it right up to Umbra? ;) 'Cause it was hilarious. I mean, yeah, I played it a bunch too. 'Cause it was super funny. Ya know, you got to Entrail Rend people. But it was hoooribly designed, completely unbalanced, and not in a million years would I have ever played it competitively. Just 'cause people played it doesn't mean it was a good game :-) -Peter

On Jul 29, 12:09 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > If it was so bad, why did so many players play it right up to Umbra? ;) It's very, very infrequent that quality and popularity have a direct relationship with each other. :) John Eno

On Jul 29, 12:09 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > To be fair, it seemed like you were decrying the *foil* aspect of those > cards (which is completely immaterial) as "foil" issues was the subject > of Curvei's post, rather than the fact that they were extremely strong. The fact that the super powerful chase cards were foil is mostly irrelevant--they could have been completely unshiny, and they still would have made the game suck by being stupidly unbalanced. As I mentioned in that post, they probably could have made the foil chase rares *not* wildly unbalanced, but that wasn't what they did. The part of Curvei's post I was addressing was the "Hey! Look! Irony! White Wolf had a CCG with foil chase rares!" part. Yes. Rage had foil chase rares. And Rage sucked. The foil chase rares weren't the only reason that Rage sucked, but they certainly were a symptom of the larger problem. -Peter

On Jul 29, 2:18 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > > Ya know, you got to Entrail Rend people. But it Yup, any game with a card called 'Curb Stomp' has to be worth a look for a bit. Anthony

[ quoted text not captured ] You better check your JOL games before you get curb stomped on to the "blacklist" :P

I have to thank everyone for helping pass nearly an hour at work breezing through this thread. First I’ll start by mentioning Bill Ricardi does have some valid points. But there is also a way to go about expressing those, and being a complete asshat when replying is not going to win anyone to your cause. -Adding a rarity symbol on cards is something I have said would be nice. Will adding it create more sales or cause players to quit? Likely not in either case. It would be a nice addition but it is not going to benefit or hurt things to the level that has been implied so far. -If the rulebook has problems, then suggest solutions that can be used. Take the time to write rule sections and put them here. Let others review them and make recommendations to wording. Then when you’ve reached the point you think the rules are best, try submitting them to LSJ or whoever is appropriate for a review. That is much more likely to see some serious consideration than random comments on the newsgroup. -Hunts, hunting, hunt action seem fine to me. +1 stealth hunt action. I guess you could change all these to read +1 stealth hunting action or vice versa. But what about a card that currently reads, “Only usable when a vampire successfully hunts.” You’d then have to change it to, “Only usable when a vampire has successfully completed a hunting action.” Some cards are already squeezed for space on them, and making this change could cause problems that don’t need to exist. If a player is unable to understand that a successful hunt is the result of a successful hunting action, then the rest of the game’s complexity is likely lost on them. -Ante wasn’t just removed for some potential issues with commerce laws in M:TG, but also the growth of organized play and DCI Tournament rules. DCI tournaments required full deck registration, and allowing ante in play would cause problems tracking cards(and allow cheating between team members), causing deck checks to last longer than they already did, and potentially allowing a player’s deck to exceed the 4 card limit imposed by their rules. >I've been to events that were held in the crowded basements of card >shops, the extra tables that a comic book shop had in their store >room, and the back tables of a Korean restaurant. While this is >quaint, more money means better treatment from the stores, higher >profile regional events, and enough polish to make the game look more >attractive to potential new players. So players attending events in crowded basements of card shops are going to better support a game that has foils? This then causes the card shop to remodel their basement for the enjoyment of players buying foils? Foils cause higher profile regional events? Magic the Gathering didn’t introduce foil cards until Urza’s Legacy (Feb 1999). By this time Magic had already exploded into a world game with huge regional, national, and international events. Rage had foils early on in its life(if not the first set), and the game failed rather rapidly. So why did Rage fail to do everything you listed above? (The correct answer is The Umbra set.) When did Star Wars CCG introduce foils? I don’t remember them when the game was in its prime, but I may be mistaken on that. The first reference I can find to foils is also 1999. However, the introduction of foils didn’t boost sales enough to keep Lucasfilm from moving Star Wars to WotC so they could destroy another genre. I’m willing to wager it has to do with marketing and gameplay that makes a game succeed or fail, not whether some cards sparkle or not. Another thing to consider with the VTES community is the use of sleeves. I’d wager more players do not use them than those who do. Foil cards are thicker, and wear bad when shuffled. You’d likely see no additional value for foils over non-foil versions of the same card for this reason. Also consider, Magic foils have little extra collector’s value. Unless it is popular staple card, foils don’t go up in price. If the addition of foils did not cause a rise in cost to either the company or the players, then sure it wouldn’t be an issue. Since neither of those is likely true however, I’d rather see the money that would have been spent on that used elsewhere for the game. >Twilight fan-girls not-withstanding, nobody wants vampires to be SHINY >or to SPARKLE. >Carpe noctem. >Lasombra Darn shame on that no reflecting clan weakness for Lasombra. > In fact, I have yet to hear any member of White Wolf staff deny > anything I've said. Most companies won’t bother refuting claims of random people since to do so will require them to address every other comment made too. >Yup, any game with a card called 'Curb Stomp' has to be worth a look >for a bit. Run Like Hell was always a favorite card title too. Rage also had one of the best pieces of art done, Taunt by Richard Kane Ferguson.

[ quoted text not captured ] There was an aquatic incident at our local games night a few weeks back. 10th Anniversary crypt cards sucked up the water and got all puffy and distorted pretty quickly. Jyhad and other group 1-2 crypt cards seemed largely unconcerned with having water spilled all over them. So the foil flaking may have just been that particular printer that did 10th anniversary and their particular choice of materials. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jul 24, 7:09 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > Bill Ricardi wrote: > > To have a (near) perfect judge IS possible, if the CCG's management > > does what it is supposed to: Standardize wording on cards, and create > > an Oracle-like database of every card's true wording. > > > You just need quality software, and a high quality of CCG mechanics > > driving the game. > > Given that VTES players were unwilling to spend FIVE DOLLARS A MONTH > on playing-online, where do you propose alll this money come from? > $5 is nothing. Id pay more for visual, real time nonbuggy VTES game easily. Its that last part that probably drove some not to pay, not the actual price rate. T

On Jul 24, 4:44 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > Invest in what? As I said before, no one was willing to pay even > FIVE DOLLARS A MONTH to play in what was already there. > Thats a lie. The community was still alive and well and playing (And paying for it) right up until CCGW disapeared. There were always dips in the numbers of the community when free periods ended but thats only to be expected. T

> The community was still alive and well and playing (And > paying for it) right up until CCGW disapeared. I wanted to thank you Talonz for all the hard work you did making the CCG engine work with VTES.

[ quoted text not captured ] Hey thanks Norm. Wish we still had something to meet and play on (JOL is too slow and clunky for me). Although to be fair the hardest work (coding) was not my doing, and I've forgotten the nickname to give proper accolades to for that, to my emberrasment. T

Bill Ricardi <billr...@googlemail.com> writes: > On Jul 25, 5:18 pm, h...@iki.fi (Janne Hägglund) wrote: > > > Armchair quarterbacking is incredibly easy. It's laughably effortless to > > talk the talk, while implying that someone else should walk the walk. > > But the walk has already been walked, now its just following in > someone else's footsteps. No, it has not. Just because someone else has spent enormous amounts of time, effort and money on something, does not make it cheap, fast and easy for everybody else. "America has already sent men to walk on the Moon. Why doesn't Finland do that as well? The walk has already been walked, not it's just following in someone else's footsteps. Are you guys just lazy or what?" HG