Ancient Influence

What is the point/power of this card? If the 5 pool had to be deducted BEFORE you got the blood back for the vampire, it would make sense to me =/

"Jack Crow" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:3b11b05...@news.flrtn1.occa.home.com... > What is the point/power of this card? If the 5 pool had to be deducted > BEFORE you got the blood back for the vampire, it would make sense to > me =/ What other card can give you a 5-6 pool gain without resorting to embrace-consang.boon or MT/fifth? Most people play with mid-cap vampires or weenies. If you build a deck using big vamps, this card can be a real savior. (And god knows, the big caps need every advantage they can get). Also note that you don't have to play the card when it cycles into your hand. You decide if and when to play it. Play it only when it's in your best interest. Use it to punish weenie players. Keep someone (including yourself) alive. There was someone who posted something about using AI in weenie deck, doing everyone 5 damage and himself only 3-4. Every advantage counts! Jeroen

Worded badly. Why not say choose your highest capacity vampire?

On Mon, 28 May 2001 03:23:47 GMT, no...@nowhere.com (Jack Crow) wrote: >Worded badly. Why not say choose your highest capacity vampire? You do. The point of the card is a large pool gain. If i bring out a 10 and everyone else has 5's or 6's and i get an ancient off, i gain 5 while the others get 1 or maybe 2, if any at all.

"Jack Crow" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:3b11c450...@news.flrtn1.occa.home.com... > Worded badly. Why not say choose your highest capacity vampire? What if choosing your highest capacity vampire caused your pool to now be greater than someone you wanted to Parity Shift? Just a thought. Kevin J. Mergen, Prince of Madison, WI (remove PLEASENOSPAMME for direct reply) "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

For a once-a-game card? Plz. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 28 May 2001 03:23:47 GMT, no...@nowhere.com (Jack Crow) wrote: >Worded badly. Why not say choose your highest capacity vampire? Card printed in 1995. Currently 2001. Bad wording = Shit Happens. -- Derek [generic .signature file]

On Mon, 28 May 2001 06:06:10 GMT, no...@nowhere.com (Jack Crow) wrote: >For a once-a-game card? Plz. I've done it before. "Please" all you want, but don't underestimate ANY card. They all have their place and time, and every little bit of wording could matter. >On Mon, 28 May 2001 05:02:08 GMT, "Kevin M." ><kjme...@PLEASENOSPAMMEhome.com> wrote: > >> >>"Jack Crow" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message >>news:3b11c450...@news.flrtn1.occa.home.com... >>> Worded badly. Why not say choose your highest capacity vampire? >> >>What if choosing your highest capacity vampire caused your pool to now be >>greater than someone you wanted to Parity Shift? Just a thought. -- Derek [generic .signature file]

"Jack Crow" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:3b11c450...@news.flrtn1.occa.home.com... > Worded badly. Why not say choose your highest capacity vampire? Because you don't HAVE to chose your highest cap. vampire. Can be important is one or the other corner case combo.

"Kevin M." <kjme...@PLEASENOSPAMMEhome.com> wrote in message news:<kZkQ6.38344$Ji.8...@news1.rdc1.il.home.com>... > "Jack Crow" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message > news:3b11c450...@news.flrtn1.occa.home.com... > > Worded badly. Why not say choose your highest capacity vampire? > > What if choosing your highest capacity vampire caused your pool to now be > greater than someone you wanted to Parity Shift? Just a thought. Or, if some other vote deck just called an Ancient Influence, you might not want to bring _your_ pool up above theirs, for fear of Parity Shift. Sure, most of the time you'll choose your highest, but not all the time. The vote deck could say "hey, i'll help you out, Mr. methuselah B, but you have to not choose vamp X on this Ancient Influence". All sorts of stuff could go on. It's a good card. Big vampire decks (other than cheesy 5th/min tap) need all the help they can get, and any small amount of versatility just makes the card more useful. salem.

Let's see. Carlotta can get the card back again and again and again... you can figure it out, I'm sure. "Jack Crow" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:3b11eac6...@news.flrtn1.occa.home.com... [ quoted text not captured ]

And it cannot be played again. On Tue, 29 May 2001 05:21:51 GMT, "Kevin M." [ quoted text not captured ]

Reprinted a couple times. Plenty of opportunity. On Mon, 28 May 2001 03:55:19 -0400, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ]

Several messages giving good reasons not to change the wording and why you wouldn't always choose your highest capacity vampire. Plenty of opportunity to reply to those, too. Brevity may be the soul of wit, but curt, meaningless replies are more pointless than pithy. [ quoted text not captured ] -- Pat Ricochet Soul Jar'rn Fool of Atlanta "You can't make a fact out of an opinion by raising your voice."

On Tue, 29 May 2001 06:28:06 GMT, no...@nowhere.com (Jack Crow) wrote: >Reprinted a couple times. Plenty of opportunity. River: cry me a. Tells you the wording is deliberate then doesn't it? Suggestion: go back to working on your client, instead of nitpicking random cards that are just fine the way they are. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Kevin M." <kjme...@PLEASENOSPAMMEhome.com> wrote in message news:<kZkQ6.38344$Ji.8...@news1.rdc1.il.home.com>... > "Jack Crow" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message > news:3b11c450...@news.flrtn1.occa.home.com... > > Worded badly. Why not say choose your highest capacity vampire? Perhaps they wanted you to have the option of shooting yourself in the foot. > What if choosing your highest capacity vampire caused your pool to now be > greater than someone you wanted to Parity Shift? Just a thought. Well, if that was just a thought, then just think about why on earth would you call that before the parity shift? Certainly if you have both in your hand, then you will play the Parity Shift first, then the Ancient Influence. All other factors aside, this seems to be the more intellegent way to play the card. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr. XZealot Archon of the Swamp

<...> > > What if choosing your highest capacity vampire caused your pool to now be > > greater than someone you wanted to Parity Shift? Just a thought. > > Well, if that was just a thought, then just think about why on earth would you > call that before the parity shift? Certainly if you have both in your hand, > then you will play the Parity Shift first, then the Ancient Influence. All > other factors aside, this seems to be the more intellegent way to play the > card. I think he means that another player might now be allowed to play PS on you if you xhose your highest cap vamp.

"jeroen rombouts" <jeroen....@pandora.be> wrote in message news:<PfRQ6.19822$X03.1...@afrodite.telenet-ops.be>... > <...> > > > What if choosing your highest capacity vampire caused your pool to now > be > > > greater than someone you wanted to Parity Shift? Just a thought. > I think he means that another player might now be allowed to play PS on you > if you xhose your highest cap vamp. I would beg to differ. Under the current syntax, " What if choosing YOUR highest capacity vampire caused YOUR pool to now be greater than someone YOU wanted to Parity Shift?" Obviously, he is asking if he had both Ancient Influence and Parity Shift in his hand, then he could Ancient Influence a vampire who was not his eldest vampire, so that he would still have less pool than another player who he would then Parity Shift. Although, now that I think about it, there is another possibility. If you had 3 pool, were holding a Ancient Influence in your hand, had both Sheldon and Tusk, the Talebearer, in play, your prey had 5 pool, the top card of your deck was a parity shift (you know this because of Tusk's special ability), you have vote lock, your prey's largest vampire is a 5 cap, and there are five players on the table. You could call the Ancient Influence with Tusk, select Tusk, thus netting you one pool, which brings your total to 4 pool, and allowing you to cycle to the Parity Shift, that you call with Sheldon and oust your prey by moving his five pool (five players= five pool) to your pool. You gain a victory point and are now back in the game with 15 pool. If it was written that you had to choose your largest vampire, then you couldn't do this and would now have a pool of 8 and a nearly worthless Parity Shift in your hand (worthless in that you would have to play it on some other Methuselah than your prey). Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown Jr. [ quoted text not captured ]

I am not nitpicking, I am asking about fundamental purpose. Since I have the responsibility to examine each card carefully, in a strictly logical manner, I cannot help but comment on cards that, if phrased properly, would be easier to code and clearer in purpose. In general, I logically look at each and every card in terms of functionality. Ancient Influence does not look like a special card that should only be allowed to be played once per game. Blood Doll is infinitely more powerful. Everything I ask is related to the client.

On 29 May 2001, XZealot wrote: > which brings your total to 4 pool, and allowing you > to cycle to the Parity Shift, that you call with Sheldon and oust your > prey by moving his five pool (five players= five pool) to your pool. Just to jump in here for a minute, but is this the way Parity Shift actually works? We had a fairly lengthy discussion about it in our local group about the wording, and came to the conclusion that the amount of pool you could allocate due to Parity Shift was limited by both the number of players in the game *and* the amount of pool by which your totals differed. For instance, in this situation, you could only Parity Shift for 1 pool, as the target had only 1 more pool than you did. Relevant text: "Choose a Methuselah who has more blood in his or her pool than you do. {Allocate X of that pool among the other remaining Methuselahs (including you), where X is the number of Methuselahs in the game}." Were we wrong? Marc Gabriele "Parameters unnecessary for eradication."

-- "Marc Gabriele" <goo...@dementia.org> wrote in message news:Pine.SUN.3.96L.101052...@alycia.dementia.org... [ quoted text not captured ] Yes you were. Key sentence "{Allocate X of that pool among the other remaining Methuselahs (including you), where X is the number of Methuselahs in the game}." If you're 5 players then it's five pool, plain and simple :)

-- "Jack Crow" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:3b144c1c....@news.flrtn1.occa.home.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Well I wouldn't want to face a ToGP Ancient Influence deck then...

X_Ze...@email.msn.com (XZealot) wrote in message news:<82c154eb.01052...@posting.google.com>... > Well, if that was just a thought, then just think about why on earth would you > call that before the parity shift? Certainly if you have both in your hand, > then you will play the Parity Shift first, then the Ancient Influence. All > other factors aside, this seems to be the more intellegent way to play the > card well, people often will vote for an ancient influence. handy if you don't have vote lock. we call those people "pool sluts", but that's just a house rule. also applies to bribed votes, etc. now, having a cryptic rider and a parity shift in your hand when calling the ancient influence is quite nifty (but unfortunately falls outside x_zealot's "all other factors aside"). salem.

On Wed, 30 May 2001 01:30:28 GMT, no...@nowhere.com (Jack Crow) wrote: > I am not nitpicking, I am asking about fundamental purpose. Since I >have the responsibility to examine each card carefully, in a strictly >logical manner, I cannot help but comment on cards that, if phrased >properly, would be easier to code and clearer in purpose. In general, So you're basically suggesting that a card should have errata, just to make your client easier to code. Right. You can go away now. >I logically look at each and every card in terms of functionality. >Ancient Influence does not look like a special card that should only >be allowed to be played once per game. Blood Doll is infinitely more >powerful. Everything I ask is related to the client. OK, let me give you a quickie on functionality. Making Ancient Influence playable more than once per game is pretty much handing big vampire decks pool gain that is more powerful than Minion Tap/5th. Imagine a deck with a ready Arika and two other Ventrue calling three of these per turn? That's 6 pool *PER ACTION*, not to mention anything snagged from Voter Captivation. Minion Tap/5th, in contrast, would gain you only 9 pool (Arika can't 5th herself, need to use Democritus), and you can only do that once per turn. It would be... ridiculously abusive. As far as the wording goes - it was written the way it was written, back long ago. There is NO gameplay-based reason to change the way it is written. Several other people have pointed out corner-case scenarios where one might, in fact, choose other that one's highest-cap vampire. Rare, yes, but of such corner-cases are winning strategic plays made... the people who NOTICE. The wording is not at all unclear - it says "each Methuselah may choose a ready vampire he or she controls". The wording is, in fact, clearly deliberate. Given the existence of cards such as Parity Shift (from the same set and timeframe), it seems highly likely that such a "corner case" occurred to the designers, as well, and they intentionally left a loophole for clever players. [ quoted text not captured ]

>So you're basically suggesting that a card should have errata, just to >make your client easier to code. > >Right. > >You can go away now. You are making unnecessary assumptions about my intentions, which are wrong in their own right. This is all irrelevant to the thread.

[ quoted text not captured ] Well, either that, or you're whining because the card text makes it more difficult for you to code. You can take your pick, but it's definitely one or the other. I notice you didn't respond to the rest of my message, which WAS relevant to the thread. Typical. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3b144c1c....@news.flrtn1.occa.home.com>, Jack Crow <no...@nowhere.com> writes >Since I >have the responsibility to examine each card carefully, You gave that responsibility to yourself. If you are not happy with coding a system whereby the rules of the game are followed - and instead want to create your own game with its own new rules and new codes - that's fine. Please, just don't bother us with it. (As an aside, when I was toying with a somewhat more minimal client in pseudo-code, it implemented far less in actual card mechanics, instead giving people the ability to do many things - like changing pool totals etc. - as necessary.) -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D "You reinstall Dial-Up Networking. The Elf screams and becomes EBD690ECD7A1F an icon. *** CONGRATULATIONS! *** You completed the BT Internet B457CA213D7E6 Helpdesk training course in 15 out of a possible 9000 moves." 68C3695D623D5D

[ quoted text not captured ] Correct. The "that" in "of that pool" refers to the the Methuselah's pool who has more pool than you. Nothing there refers to the difference. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

People are not perfect. It would be foolhardy of me not to include such functions. Because of unintentional clicks/whathaveyou. [ quoted text not captured ]

You are an idiot. "This" was in reference to the only subject of the post I made."My aims in starting the thread." FYI I was wondering if I should code in an alternate version of the card for houserules. You cannot tell what I am thinking, so quit jumping to your own conclusions and then judging me by them. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3b1581f0...@news.flrtn1.occa.home.com>, Jack Crow <no...@nowhere.com> writes >People are not perfect. It would be foolhardy of me not to include >such functions. Because of unintentional clicks/whathaveyou. Please learn to post in a manner consistent with how Usenet works i.e. snipping people's articles and posting your responses underneath their text. This is dictated by Internet standards and netiquette. However, you entirely missed the point being made - which was that rather than trying to cope with all possibly outcomes, allow players to do things by themselves. This makes Succubus Club easier, for example, as well as catering for house rules. For instance, say a group of players want to try out a new piece of errata on-line. They can't, if the client is so hard-coded that they have no flexibility. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 30 May 2001 23:33:32 GMT, no...@nowhere.com (Jack Crow) wrote: >You are an idiot. "This" was in reference to the only subject of the >post I made."My aims in starting the thread." Maybe you just write like shit? =) >FYI I was wondering if I should code in an alternate version of the >card for houserules. You cannot tell what I am thinking, so quit >jumping to your own conclusions and then judging me by them. I would suggest learning the -actual- rules before coding in alternate versions of cards and house rules, myself. But that's just me. As far as jumping to conclusions... well, if it looks like Duck and is a 3-cap with pot/obf... [ quoted text not captured ]

> In message <3b1581f0...@news.flrtn1.occa.home.com>, Jack Crow > <no...@nowhere.com> writes >> People are not perfect. It would be foolhardy of me not to include >> such functions. Because of unintentional clicks/whathaveyou. > > Please learn to post in a manner consistent with how Usenet works i.e. > snipping people's articles and posting your responses underneath their > text. This is dictated by Internet standards and netiquette. > > > However, you entirely missed the point being made - which was that > rather than trying to cope with all possibly outcomes, allow players to > do things by themselves. This makes Succubus Club easier, for example, > as well as catering for house rules. > > > For instance, say a group of players want to try out a new piece of > errata on-line. They can't, if the client is so hard-coded that they > have no flexibility. I suppose I could/should check this out myself, but can someone explain to me how it's done in Jyhad On Line (JOL, I think it's often called)? Are there any rules in the "overseer" program? Is there any such program? Or is it just a series of "I played this, so you do that"s, or what? I understand it has a cardlist or somesuch (as there was a "Camille, the Raven" at one point IIRC) to go by, and I would guess does the "shuffling" so you can't cheat, but after that, I'm awfully sketchy on how it works or doesn't work. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <B73B49EF.4023%sp...@socrates.gatech.edu>, Pat Ricochet <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> writes > I suppose I could/should check this out myself, but can someone explain >to me how it's done in Jyhad On Line (JOL, I think it's often called)? Are >there any rules in the "overseer" program? Effectively, you just have a section of "bins" for library cards and crypt cards. They can be in your deck, in hand/uncontrolled, in play or the ash-heap or whatever. Virtually all the commands are moving them between them, or looking at a certain "bin". Everything else is handled informally by the players and moderator. [ quoted text not captured ]

The Succubus club only allows the transfer of objects in-game and specifically cards from your hand or in-play, and pool. These trades can only be traded between the Succubus club owner and another methuselah one at a time (if you look at the transaction model). No other agreements are enforced by the rules, so are considered "verbal" agreements (see next paragraph). A common question is whether or not I will have a way for players to communicate via chat messages. I see no reason to implement a cheesy chat client at this time, since IRC clients provide more sophisticated and appropriate functionality. Errata will be implemented as it occurs. Coding an entirely new set of cards (expansions) is far more time consuming than altering priorities and values in functions that have already been designed. As a simple example, if Banishment is interpreted as (paraphrase) "banished to the uncontrolled region of the owner" instead of the controller, I simply have to alter some variable names. Original Code (essentially) - CodexVampire targetVamp = PlayerA.findVamp(banishedVamp); CodexPlayer minionController = targetMinion.getController(); CodexLocation curLocation = targetMinion.getLocation(); CodexLocation curDestination = owner.getUncontrolledRegion(); minionController.addMinion(targetVamp, curDestination); PlayerA.releaseMinion(targetVamp, curLocation); Errata'd - CodexVampire targetVamp = PlayerA.findVamp(banishedVamp); CodexPlayer minionOwner = targetMinion.getOwner(); CodexLocation curLocation = targetMinion.getLocation(); CodexLocation curDestination = owner.getUncontrolledRegion(); minionOwner.addMinion(targetVamp, curDestination); PlayerA.releaseMinion(targetVamp, curLocation); My API is quite extensive in order that I may accomodate every possible combination of events and some that arent. My strict enforcement of the rules will allow games to move faster as an aim to reduce the need for chatter. You will be able to examine everyone's table up close at will. Examine any card in play, at will. Implementing "seeing all other methuselah's hands for the rest of your turn" is a snap in my design. Most importantly, this client will allow more than 2 people to play at once (up tot 8 - 10). The max number has not been set yet, but will be sane (< 12) to protect against certain runtime problems.

On Fri, 01 Jun 2001 01:55:45 GMT, no...@nowhere.com (Jack Crow) wrote: >The Succubus club only allows the transfer of objects in-game and >specifically cards from your hand or in-play, and pool. These trades >can only be traded between the Succubus club owner and another >methuselah one at a time (if you look at the transaction model). No >other agreements are enforced by the rules, so are considered "verbal" >agreements (see next paragraph). "verbal" agreements are the primary function of the Succubus Club when it is included in a deck - typically giving pool, cards, minions, etc. for favors. I don't see it being a -major- issue to code, however, as it's a simple matter of specifying valid targets to "move". However, see next paragraph. >A common question is whether or not I will have a way for players to >communicate via chat messages. I see no reason to implement a cheesy >chat client at this time, since IRC clients provide more sophisticated >and appropriate functionality. This is a fatal flaw. You MUST include something integrated into the client, no matter how primitive, and even if it only allows chat to one "central" public area with no bells, no whistles, no nothing. The -real- game revolves around communication, and if there is none, then the game will be only a pale shadow of "real" V:TES. Suggesting that players use IRC clients (or anything else) in the background is a typical coder-centric perspective, and a bad, BAD mistake. Joe Average wants something that is functional out of the box, not something that forces him to download an IRC client as well just to talk to other people while he's playing. Look at Yahoo!'s games area, for example - their "chat" function is about as primitive as it gets, yet you can enter most games and find table-talk merrily going on. People want to be social, and they won't want to screw around with IRC clients and external programs and hopping back and forth just to do it. >Errata will be implemented as it occurs. Coding an entirely new set of You haven't done this sort of thing before, have you? Time and time again, coders attempt to make this commitment, and time and time again, they realize what a pain it is to actually DO that sort of thing and vanish into the middle distance, leaving the users stuck with a white elephant. Better to leave server operators at least REASONABLY able to edit the card database themselves, so that "house rules" can be put in place easily... cf. the Quake I phenomenon. Yes, I realize that some cards, such as Mind Numb and Rotschreck, produce effects that are difficult to handle without special code, and that can't be helped. But most cards affect basic building blocks, such as "minion blood", "minion's current region" (ready, torpor, uncontrolled), etc. And leaving THESE server-operator-editable would be very wise. ...You ARE doing it client-server, right? Not peer-to-peer? It doesn't have to be a lone-dedicated-server machine, of course, but having one person "host" the game is a much more stable option, especially since if ANYONE drops from the game, the game can't continue, so putting all the eggs in one 'server' basket won't matter. Not to mention that you can eliminate much of the potential for cheating that way (although as always, you have to trust the host's machine). >My API is quite extensive in order that I may accomodate every >possible combination of events and some that arent. My strict >enforcement of the rules will allow games to move faster as an aim to >reduce the need for chatter. You will be able to examine everyone's You need to be very careful, though. Your previous comment about action modifiers/reactions disturbed me greatly, as it indicates that you don't actually play this game very much at ALL currently. Perhaps in the past, but certainly not recently. We all appreciate your efforts to create something, ... but I have also seen many people, time and again, simply blow smoke up the public's collective asses with vapourware that just never quite made it to a "functional" stage for one reason or another. Sometimes totally unintentionally. >table up close at will. Examine any card in play, at will. >Implementing "seeing all other methuselah's hands for the rest of your >turn" is a snap in my design. Most importantly, this client will allow >more than 2 people to play at once (up tot 8 - 10). The max number has >not been set yet, but will be sane (< 12) to protect against certain >runtime problems. The max number should really be set at 5. The game-time tends to increase exponentially once you go higher than 5, and it is worth noting that 6 is the lowest number of players where there is a person whom your actions have ABSOLUTELY no effect on. In a five-player game, you directly affect your prey and predator, and your actions or lack thereof will indirectly affect your grandprey and grandpredator, respectively. In a six-player game, the "ripple effect" simply doesn't make it that far down the table, and the person who is directly across from you can totally ignore you until the first person is ousted. This is not a very good thing. If nothing else, it could be made a server-side option and the default max_clients_connected should be 5 - forcing hosts to go out of their way to alter it. -- Derek Thug of Atlanta

On Fri, 01 Jun 2001 01:55:45 GMT, Jack Crow wrote: >The Succubus club only allows the transfer of objects in-game and >specifically cards from your hand or in-play, and pool. These trades >can only be traded between the Succubus club owner and another >methuselah one at a time (if you look at the transaction model). What do you mean by "transaction model"? As I read the card, you can and must have package deals when they involve cards from hand because both parties have to keep their hands full. What's not clear to me is whether deals can be binding over time. For example, as part of a deal, can one give away the Succubus Club itself on the condition that it will be returned in the recipient's next untap phase? Is this binding? Andrew

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > What's not clear to me is whether deals can be binding over time. For > example, as part of a deal, can one give away the Succubus Club itself > on the condition that it will be returned in the recipient's next > untap phase? Is this binding? No, per card text. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 01 Jun 2001 06:09:32 -0400, LSJ wrote: >> What's not clear to me is whether deals can be binding over time. For >> example, as part of a deal, can one give away the Succubus Club itself >> on the condition that it will be returned in the recipient's next >> untap phase? Is this binding? > >No, per card text. A bad example. If the card text is still Master: unique location. Methuselahs can give you pool, and you can give them pool. You can trade cards from your hand or in play. These trades can only happen during your untap phase and cannot result in any Methuselah having less than his or her hand size. Any additional terms can be established, but none are enfoced by the rules. this doesn't make it clear whether the trade has to complete within a single untap phase. It's obviously simpler and better if it must. Andrew

"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:176CFB7E1A76948C.D3B1A1C0...@lp.airnews.net... [ quoted text not captured ] why? The last line of the text clearly states that additional terms are not enforced by the rules and therefore not binding. => There is an opportunity for the other meth (who now possesses the Club) to break the deal. wich, IMO, is a good thing; otherwise SC would be too overpowered, NTM creating monocle of Clarity-like problems. J.

On Fri, 01 Jun 2001 11:30:59 +0100, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >On Fri, 01 Jun 2001 06:09:32 -0400, LSJ wrote: > >>> What's not clear to me is whether deals can be binding over time. For >>> example, as part of a deal, can one give away the Succubus Club itself >>> on the condition that it will be returned in the recipient's next >>> untap phase? Is this binding? >> >>No, per card text. > >A bad example. If the card text is still > >Master: unique location. Methuselahs can give you pool, and you can >give them pool. You can trade cards from your hand or in play. These >trades can only happen during your untap phase and cannot result in >any Methuselah having less than his or her hand size. Any additional >terms can be established, but none are enfoced by the rules. So you give the Succubus Club and X other things to another Methuselah. You have traded cards in play, during your untap phase. In return, he promises to trade the SC back to you on his own untap. This is, by card text, an "additional term" established on the trade of cards in play, and it is not enforced by the rules, also by card text. So you can DO it... but it's not binding. >this doesn't make it clear whether the trade has to complete within a >single untap phase. It's obviously simpler and better if it must. Lacking any other time reference, "immediately" must be assumed. Not to mention the card text reading "These trades can only happen during YOUR untap phase." <-- key word "your", so you can't say "I'll give you the Rack on my untap if you give me the Parthenon on yours." [ quoted text not captured ]

>"verbal" agreements are the primary function of the Succubus Club when >it is included in a deck - typically giving pool, cards, minions, etc. >for favors. I don't see it being a -major- issue to code, however, as >it's a simple matter of specifying valid targets to "move". > >background is a typical coder-centric perspective This is for VTES/Computer savvy english speaking ppl. Period. There wont be catering to joe-blow. It will not catch a bunch of unexpected scenarios that are just plain silly for sure (like having a pool of 150k or more). The only reason I will even IMPLEMENT the examination of cards (beyond their simple icons) is to allow players to be reminded of details. Typical coder-centric perspective is to limit a program to it's necessary components. You obviously have not done a lot of programming =p >You haven't done this sort of thing before, have you? Time and time >again, coders attempt to make this commitment, and time and time >again, they realize what a pain it is to actually DO that sort of >thing and vanish into the middle distance, leaving the users stuck >with a white elephant. I am a professional who makes 75k a year programming (albeit in a different language). Code maintenance and modification to new specs is something I do daily. I have waited 5 years to start this project. After Ancient Hearts, I thought Jyhad was dead. After Sabbat I was almost experienced enough to start the project...but alas, Sabbat looked like a final dying gasp for the game. Now that new expansions and promises have been made, my position is that time is irrelevant and I will get it underway. The code is open source. Anyone who wishes to modify it, go ahead. >Better to leave server operators at least >REASONABLY able to edit the card database themselves, so that "house >rules" can be put in place easily... cf. the Quake I phenomenon. Yes, >I realize that some cards, such as Mind Numb and Rotschreck, produce >effects that are difficult to handle without special code, and that >can't be helped. But most cards affect basic building blocks, such as >"minion blood", "minion's current region" (ready, torpor, >uncontrolled), etc. And leaving THESE server-operator-editable would >be very wise. > I am unsure of how I will handle "undoing" previous actions. More likely I will allow the "server admin" (via password) to alter table conditions at will. As for potential abuse, see my first response above. This is only for friendly games. >...You ARE doing it client-server, right? Client server to do some neat tricks to reduce and counteract latency (when dealing with responding to events. The server daemon will be quite small, but will only be for unix machines. I will personally provide 2 of them 24/7 on separate ip's (since I wont be on to play all the time, admin will be disabled on them most of the time). Plus, anyone who wants to can download the daemon and install it. >You need to be very careful, though. Your previous comment about >action modifiers/reactions disturbed me greatly, as it indicates that >you don't actually play this game very much at ALL currently. Perhaps >in the past, but certainly not recently. This is true. Mostly I'm doing it because I sold my collection (including complete sets up to Ancient Hearts) and dont feel I can make the financial commitment to scrounging up an equivalent hoard...especially with the lack of product on the market. > We all appreciate your >efforts to create something, ... but I have also seen many people, >time and again, simply blow smoke up the public's collective asses >with vapourware that just never quite made it to a "functional" stage >for one reason or another. Sometimes totally unintentionally. God I know a LOT about vaporware. I dont get paid, I dont care how long it takes, so there's no reason I cant finish. Code is open to the public. If you think I'm going too slow, you add to it. I've written over 100 pages with about 200-500 more to go (in total). No sweat. All things happen, eventually. *I* have forever. >The max number should really be set at 5. The max number will be more than 5 and less than 12. There's nothing wrong with providing too many, rather than too few. I hate it when people whine about functionality that will require a near complete rewrite of a binary, so I'll put a limit that I'm comfortable noone can complain about. >If nothing else, it could be made a server-side option and the default >max_clients_connected should be 5 - forcing hosts to go out of their >way to alter it. Server options will be as you would expect. Maximum players, starting pool, etc. etc. When the beta is released, input will be seriously considered. At this point most everything is well on it's way.

On Fri, 01 Jun 2001 23:03:08 GMT, no...@nowhere.com (Jack Crow) wrote: >>"verbal" agreements are the primary function of the Succubus Club when >>it is included in a deck - typically giving pool, cards, minions, etc. >>for favors. I don't see it being a -major- issue to code, however, as >>it's a simple matter of specifying valid targets to "move". >> >>background is a typical coder-centric perspective > >This is for VTES/Computer savvy english speaking ppl. Period. There >wont be catering to joe-blow. It will not catch a bunch of unexpected Again, bad idea, but your blinders are fully on, I see, and you don't understand. Trying to limit your own audience in this way is just silly - you have an unparallelled opportunity while there are no other clients in existence. Why waste it? Not to mention that plenty of computer-b0z0nic and foreign people will happily download and use it ANYWAY. >scenarios that are just plain silly for sure (like having a pool of >150k or more). The only reason I will even IMPLEMENT the examination >of cards (beyond their simple icons) is to allow players to be >reminded of details. Typical coder-centric perspective is to limit a >program to it's necessary components. You obviously have not done a >lot of programming =p Only since assembler on a 6502. But your definition of "necessary" components is sorely lacking. If you're programming a GAME... it should be FUN. If the FUN is not there... why would anyone play the GAME? More specifically, "anything worth doing is worth doing well." Old cliche, I know, but extremely accurate. >>You haven't done this sort of thing before, have you? Time and time >>again, coders attempt to make this commitment, and time and time >>again, they realize what a pain it is to actually DO that sort of >>thing and vanish into the middle distance, leaving the users stuck >>with a white elephant. > >I am a professional who makes 75k a year programming (albeit in a Like I said, you haven't done this before, have you? There's a huge difference between being paid to maintain code, and doing something for free with a bunch of ungrateful players clamouring at your door. Look at your own statements: "time is irrelevant", "whenever i finish, i finish", "i have forever"... Having seen it enough in the past, I will believe it when I see it actually happen here. >different language). Code maintenance and modification to new specs is >something I do daily. I have waited 5 years to start this project. >After Ancient Hearts, I thought Jyhad was dead. After Sabbat I was >almost experienced enough to start the project...but alas, Sabbat >looked like a final dying gasp for the game. Now that new expansions >and promises have been made, my position is that time is irrelevant >and I will get it underway. The code is open source. Anyone who wishes >to modify it, go ahead. screenshots != open source. Links to source would be entertaining. >I am unsure of how I will handle "undoing" previous actions. More >likely I will allow the "server admin" (via password) to alter table >conditions at will. As for potential abuse, see my first response >above. This is only for friendly games. When you release something to the public, you don't release it to just a certain small portion of the public that can be trusted to handle it. You release it to the PUBLIC, and that includes the bad and stupid public along with the good, computer savvy public. Haven't you ever seen someone DoS a Quake server before when they're losing? >> We all appreciate your >>efforts to create something, ... but I have also seen many people, >>time and again, simply blow smoke up the public's collective asses >>with vapourware that just never quite made it to a "functional" stage >>for one reason or another. Sometimes totally unintentionally. > >God I know a LOT about vaporware. I dont get paid, I dont care how >long it takes, so there's no reason I cant finish. Code is open to the ...Until you get bored and start something else. Slow is not the issue. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote > More specifically, "anything worth doing is worth doing well." Old > cliche, I know, but extremely accurate. Sure, I like cliches as much as the next guy. "The best is the enemy of the good." - Jason Bell

>>This is for VTES/Computer savvy english speaking ppl. Period. There >>wont be catering to joe-blow. It will not catch a bunch of unexpected > >Again, bad idea, but your blinders are fully on, I see, and you don't >understand. Trying to limit your own audience in this way is just >silly - you have an unparallelled opportunity while there are no other >clients in existence. Why waste it? > >Not to mention that plenty of computer-b0z0nic and foreign people will >happily download and use it ANYWAY. If this was a commercial grade product, I would be selling the sizzle to Wizards of the Coast. I dont see where you get the idea you have direct input on the code. I have a target audience that I trust and will provide servers as a courtesy (so what if they get DoS'd?). I do not promise a battlenet service. You work out your own "security" issues with your own server setup if you are so concerned. >>scenarios that are just plain silly for sure (like having a pool of >>150k or more). The only reason I will even IMPLEMENT the examination >>of cards (beyond their simple icons) is to allow players to be >>reminded of details. Typical coder-centric perspective is to limit a >>program to it's necessary components. You obviously have not done a >>lot of programming =p > >Only since assembler on a 6502. But your definition of "necessary" >components is sorely lacking. If you're programming a GAME... it >should be FUN. If the FUN is not there... why would anyone play the >GAME? I dont remember calling it a game. It's much simpler than that. Unless you want to work on implementations of your own ideas, pre-emptive criticisms are empty. >Like I said, you haven't done this before, have you? > Now you're just spouting off shit. >There's a huge difference between being paid to maintain code, and >doing something for free with a bunch of ungrateful players clamouring >at your door. Look at your own statements: "time is irrelevant", >"whenever i finish, i finish", "i have forever"... This is for me and my friends. It may never be "finished" but it will work goddamnit. Cant let my friend's in Orange County down =) My own statements are testaments to my dedication to it. >screenshots != open source. Links to source would be entertaining. Again, you're talking down to me when you are ignorant of the facts. There are links to working source (updated weekly). http://24.0.197.44/VTESC/vtesc For people who are following, this is in big bold letters in the Sourceforge forum. >When you release something to the public, you don't release it to just >a certain small portion of the public that can be trusted to handle >it. You release it to the PUBLIC, and that includes the bad and >stupid public along with the good, computer savvy public. Your opinion is noted and wrong. >...Until you get bored and start something else. Slow is not the >issue. It's been 5 years and a month now. I figure I'll get bored with it in 10 more years, minimum. This thread has continued beyond it's usefulness. You want to bitch, code, or have any further questions, email ja...@teacher.com or visit http://www.jack9.org (which really has nothing to do with VTESC)

On Sat, 02 Jun 2001 11:10:09 GMT, no...@nowhere.com (Jack Crow) wrote: >This is for me and my friends. It may never be "finished" but it will >work goddamnit. Cant let my friend's in Orange County down =) My own >statements are testaments to my dedication to it. (quotable paragraph, quoted for quotability) >>screenshots != open source. Links to source would be entertaining. > >Again, you're talking down to me when you are ignorant of the facts. >There are links to working source (updated weekly). >http://24.0.197.44/VTESC/vtesc For people who are following, this is >in big bold letters in the Sourceforge forum. Wow, that's a GREAT spot for it. If you want V:TES players to help, I know we -all- go and read Sourceforge every single day. *cough* >This thread has continued beyond it's usefulness. Considering you've stated you're basically writing a toy for your friends, instead of producing something available and useful to the general public,... and nevertheless you post here looking for acclaim... yes, it certainly has. At least the purpose is clear now. As for where I get the idea I have direct input on the code - If I wanted direct input on the CODE, I would download the source and submit diffs. I'm merely offering ideas. You are, as is ANYBODY, free to ignore as you please. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sat, 02 Jun 2001 11:39:59 -0400, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: >On Sat, 02 Jun 2001 11:10:09 GMT, no...@nowhere.com (Jack Crow) wrote: > >>Again, you're talking down to me when you are ignorant of the facts. >>There are links to working source (updated weekly). >>http://24.0.197.44/VTESC/vtesc For people who are following, this is >>in big bold letters in the Sourceforge forum. > >Wow, that's a GREAT spot for it. If you want V:TES players to help, I >know we -all- go and read Sourceforge every single day. *cough* Not to mention that the link above is broken as of 6/2/2001 12:43 EDT. I checked http://24.0.197.44/VTESC/index.html, and all that's on THAT page is a link to the Sourceforge project. Neither VTESC/vtesc.html or VTESC/vtesc.htm are in existence, nor is VTESC/vtesc/index.html, tried on a random off chance. I suppose I could read the Sourceforge forum, but I hate web-boards; I find them a waste of my time, drilling down through layer after layer of meaningless crap that's just there to simulate complexity. If more web-boards would make it easier to get to the CONTENT... but i digress. Working links would be welcome. I -am- curious. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sat, 02 Jun 2001 12:49:24 -0400, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] I dont look for acclaim. That's your fantasy. Sourceforge is the up to date development status. Not the newsgroup, not any webpage. You dont like web forums, join the club. It's the only outlet that I feel is decent and non-imposing. You have been checking the wrong urls. Please try to understand that I post absolute URLs. that are ment to be typed literally and I forgot to add the last /, which indicates it's a directory. My apologies. I wouldnt want to keep zipping all this code and whenever I update 1 object, so I simply save and ftp up to my webserver. http://24.0.197.44/VTESC/vtesc/ <-- it's a directory, not an html file.

On Sat, 02 Jun 2001 21:53:56 GMT, no...@nowhere.com (Jack Crow) wrote: >Sourceforge is the up to date development status. Not the newsgroup, I assumed so. I did, in fact, glance at the Sourceforge information, but it is in early status. >not any webpage. You dont like web forums, join the club. It's the >only outlet that I feel is decent and non-imposing. You have been >checking the wrong urls. Please try to understand that I post absolute >URLs. that are ment to be typed literally and I forgot to add the last >/, which indicates it's a directory. My apologies. I wouldnt want to Hmm. Time to profane Internet Explorer again - it understands SOME names as directories without the trailing \, but apparently it doesn't understand this one. (i was able to use http://24.0.197.44/files, as written there, to directory-browse, but attempting to feed VTESC/vtesc into it got me snubbed.) >keep zipping all this code and whenever I update 1 object, so I simply >save and ftp up to my webserver. >http://24.0.197.44/VTESC/vtesc/ <-- it's a directory, not an html >file. Ah. Should work much better. (Haven't tried it yet.) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 01 Jun 2001 01:55:45 GMT, Jack Crow wrote: >The Succubus club only allows the transfer of objects in-game and >specifically cards from your hand or in-play, and pool. These trades >can only be traded between the Succubus club owner and another >methuselah one at a time (if you look at the transaction model). I still don't see where you're getting this one-at-a-time transaction model from. The card implies that trades within an untap phase are binding. One reason for this would be to eliminate awkward disputes as to who actually controls an object during a trade if one side wanted to renege. E.g. Player A agrees to trade 3 pool and the Ivory Bow for The Parthenon. Player B agrees and takes the pool and bow from Player A. Player A reaches for The Parthenon but Player B then says, "Fooled you! - I'm not going through with my end of the deal." They now tussle over The Parthenon card and tear it into two... To avoid this, it is best if deals are bundled and binding. >A common question is whether or not I will have a way for players to >communicate via chat messages. I see no reason to implement a cheesy >chat client at this time, since IRC clients provide more sophisticated >and appropriate functionality. One reason to have an integrated chat client is that it would allow you to implement Madness of the Bard using a rigorous algorithm like Soundex. Andrew

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > > On Fri, 01 Jun 2001 01:55:45 GMT, Jack Crow wrote: > > >The Succubus club only allows the transfer of objects in-game and > >specifically cards from your hand or in-play, and pool. These trades > >can only be traded between the Succubus club owner and another > >methuselah one at a time (if you look at the transaction model). > > I still don't see where you're getting this one-at-a-time transaction > model from. The card implies that trades within an untap phase are > binding. Well, it implies that trades are made. You make a trade (as specified/allowed by the card's text) and that's it. You make any other arrangements you like, but (per card text) none of the other arranagements are binding. > One reason for this would be to eliminate awkward disputes > as to who actually controls an object during a trade if one side > wanted to renege. E.g. Player A agrees to trade 3 pool and the Ivory > Bow for The Parthenon. Player B agrees and takes the pool and bow > from Player A. Player A reaches for The Parthenon but Player B then > says, "Fooled you! - I'm not going through with my end of the deal." > They now tussle over The Parthenon card and tear it into two... > > To avoid this, it is best if deals are bundled and binding. Correct, and this is how the card works. You trade 3 pool and the Ivory Bow for the Parthenon. Before the trade, you control 3 pool and the Ivory bow and your partner controls the Parthenon. After the trade you control the Parthenon and your partner controls the 3 pool and the Ivory Bow. [ quoted text not captured ]

. > > I still don't see where you're getting this one-at-a-time transaction > model from. The card implies that trades within an untap phase are > binding. One reason for this would be to eliminate awkward disputes > as to who actually controls an object during a trade if one side > wanted to renege. E.g. Player A agrees to trade 3 pool and the Ivory > Bow for The Parthenon. Player B agrees and takes the pool and bow > from Player A. Player A reaches for The Parthenon but Player B then > says, "Fooled you! - I'm not going through with my end of the deal." > They now tussle over The Parthenon card and tear it into two... > > To avoid this, it is best if deals are bundled and binding. I believe where the deals are not binding, is when you make an arrangement along the lines of, "I'll give you all of my vampires so you can oust your prey this turn...then you give them back and your vampires to me so I can oust my prey." When the next turn comes, you don't have to give them back. Tig

>>The Succubus club only allows the transfer of objects in-game and >>specifically cards from your hand or in-play, and pool. These trades >>can only be traded between the Succubus club owner and another >>methuselah one at a time (if you look at the transaction model). > To reduce confusion, I meant: "owner and another methuselah one at a time" to be the entire transaction (tit for tat). These are binding as per the previous comments.