(LSJ) Pariah's flaw, and design questions

Hello ! i'm playing Pariah with a fair success, but something struck me : the wording "pariah cannot attempt undirected actions other than hunting" also means pariah cannot recue himself from torpor. right ? as i think this assertion is right then... i'm just wondering why he was designed like this. I mean, compared to other mid cap rushers like Beast or Ellen Fence, he already has a tremendous disadvantage (you must discard a master card each turn or else he's quite useless) I understand that, for some reason, the design team does not want him to do undirected stuff like voting or playing shdow of the beast, or even equipping but... It's the first vampire ever who is not able to rescue himself (not spoking of julius ;) ) which means if he's toasted you'll have a very hard time having him back. Is Pariah such a threat in those groupe 1/2 or 2/3 deck that he has to be toned down like this ? =)

There is still the hope for an advanced Pariah: [Merged] Pariah can rescue himself from torpor ignoring the "no undirected actions" limitation :-)))))) -- johannes walch

reyda wrote: > Hello ! > > i'm playing Pariah with a fair success, but something struck me : > the wording "pariah cannot attempt undirected actions other than > hunting" also means pariah cannot recue himself from torpor. > right ? Yes. > as i think this assertion is right then... > i'm just wondering why he was designed like this. I mean, compared to > other mid cap rushers like Beast or Ellen Fence, he already has a > tremendous disadvantage (you must discard a master card each turn or > else he's quite useless) > I understand that, for some reason, the design team does not want him to > do undirected stuff like voting or playing shdow of the beast, or even > equipping but... It's the first vampire ever who is not able to rescue > himself (not spoking of julius ;) ) which means if he's toasted you'll > have a very hard time having him back. Is Pariah such a threat in those > groupe 1/2 or 2/3 deck that he has to be toned down like this ? =) There are an infinite number of ways to design any given vampire. Why choose one over all the others? Because one has to be chosen. -- LSJ (vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply) Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

reyda wrote: > ...compared to > other mid cap rushers like Beast or Ellen Fence, [Pariah] already has a > tremendous disadvantage (you must discard a master card each turn or > else he's quite useless) Pariah's special is only a disadvantage when it isn't an advantage. Use him in decks with excess masters you want to get rid of later in the game (Galaric's Legacy, Zillah's Valley, Info Highway, Parthenon) and he's almost as good as the Barrens.

[ quoted text not captured ] I like my interpretation of how you design cards for this game. Its inspired by other posts, but I'll state mention it here, too, because of what you wrote above. I asked you once about Nedal, The Careless. It was something like "Why nec cel? Was their a design niche that needed a one cap with those two disciplines?" And your response was "Why not?" Essentially. So I crafted this little thought about how you design cards. You just design stuff. You know. I'm thinking maybe you've got this huge Xcel list of vampire cards, or maybe a giant wheel o' card text and you kinda' pick at random what things should have. Then, after you've designed it, if it doesn't break the game or the group, and if it fills a card spot in a set, you print it. Am I right? (OK, seriously though. I know you also designs things from the top down... or is that bottom up? That is, think of things the meta needs and print cards for them (disengange, though that shoulda' been printed about 5 years ago...). Its just funny how whenever people ask you about why you designed certain cards, you just give them a non-commital answer, like "eh. I felt I outta'" Or "Because. Deal with it".) ~SV

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Screaming Vermillian wrote: | about 5 years ago...). Its just funny how whenever people ask you about | why you designed certain cards, you just give them a non-commital | answer, like "eh. I felt I outta'" Or "Because. Deal with it".) I'm not certain LSJ will answer this, but I can -- because part of my responsibilities at my own job are also design-oriented, and given that my "audience" tends to be multiple different support groups, all of whom think they know what's best for the product, the clients, and the company, I can quite understand the rationale here. I use a variant of it on a daily basis. __ It's not an effective use of his time to provide a real answer. __ Yep, that sounds rude. But you know why? It's not that the time taken to give the answer is significant -- it's that the chances of the questioner and all other readers both agreeing, and more importantly, shutting up about it are almost zero. Since you've already started down the road of "answer", you're then stuck responding to ALL the "but why? but what about? but that's stupid?" questions, which take up way, way more time -- and you have no guarantee the questioner will EVER agree with you. People like yourself will lie in wait for a design decision you don't agree with and immediately begin campaigning as to how YOU could've been done better, even though you're likely to be dead wrong. To sum up, by trying to seriously answer in the first place, all you do is open the door to gallons of thought-free second-guessing by chirpers, and then you spend a whole lot of time defending a decision that frankly, there's no need to defend. The sales record of each of the sets speaks for itself; clearly the Design Team is doing an excellent job creating new sets, because the sets KEEP SELLING and people KEEP PLAYING. When a set or particular associated product doesn't sell well, or when hordes of people bail out of the game and cite a reason like "Events make it too butt-ass random and it's no fun anymore", THEN it's time to start second-guessing the designer. This sort of logic is, of course, beyond the average chirper -- all he can see is that he would've done it differently. - -- Derek insert clever quotation here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32) iD8DBQFCfnE+tQZlu3o7QpERAgHqAJsHrqV6wXOjaT8MaZkn+Vs0PDM17QCfYqo7 KIrO6z/wQS94Hozb+WP6Ln8= =isig -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Emmit Svenson a écrit : [ quoted text not captured ] i'm already doing this thanks. the deck packs small cap !gangrels with protean. i have some skills that i discard, and when a vamp hits torpor, i go eat him, play gangrel conspiracy, and retrieves the master card from my ash heap to put it on a vamp. Added Path of death and the soul to double the weenie farming :) the deck is fairly ok, with some disguised Desert eagle to hose long range fighters, but still... Parih is not the best rusher in the world, i mean he cannot rescue the weenie, and cannot rescue himself. So i was wondering what threat he would represent to be designed like this. but well, i guess i'll never have an answer anyway. it was just a burst of curiousity, i don't really care. =)

My Pariah deck has a lot of weenies that Computer Hack bleed. When you block, Paiah Hidden Lurkers you with Shadow of the Wolf for 6 and an almost guaranteed second round. Throw in a taste and a wolf claws here and there and he's Hmmm, Good.

Ummm... Don't you mean hits for 2 + 3 = 5? Shadow of the wolf + 1 strength is only on the additional strike, no? I always wanted to make a haymaker+lucky blow+flesh of marble deck. Well it seemed to like a good idea at the time. [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Screaming Vermillian wrote: > | about 5 years ago...). Its just funny how whenever people ask you about > | why you designed certain cards, you just give them a non-commital > | answer, like "eh. I felt I outta'" Or "Because. Deal with it".) > > I'm not certain LSJ will answer this, but I can -- because part of my > responsibilities at my own job are also design-oriented, and given that > my "audience" tends to be multiple different support groups, all of whom > think they know what's best for the product, the clients, and the > company, I can quite understand the rationale here. I use a variant of > it on a daily basis. > > __ It's not an effective use of his time to provide a real answer. __ Yeah. You're right. I suppose it isn't a very effective use of his time. It'd be fun to know, once, just once, why he designs certain cards... Like maybe he could answer one of these questions a month. Put a cap on it. It'd be a fun read, and aspiring CCG designers would like the information. :) > Yep, that sounds rude. Heheh. And you're just the kind of guy to say it. > To sum up, by trying to seriously answer in the first place, all you do > is open the door to gallons of thought-free second-guessing by chirpers, ooo. I've gotta' add that to my list of names I've been called by old-timers-too-stuck-in-their-ways-to-have-a-good-time-poking-fun-at-things. (oh wait... sorry. I guess I just name called... oops) > and then you spend a whole lot of time defending a decision that > frankly, there's no need to defend. The sales record of each of the > sets speaks for itself; clearly the Design Team is doing an excellent > job creating new sets, because the sets KEEP SELLING and people KEEP > PLAYING. Oh yes. The design team is doing a wonderful job (not mentioning the game's font change, icon misplacements, color printing mismatch, 'meh' prize support (though better than none), apparent failure of create-a-storyline tournaments, discountinuation of WoD1.0, apparent inability to incorporate WoD2.0, and non existence of easy quick start rules for noobs). > When a set or particular associated product doesn't sell well, > or when hordes of people bail out of the game and cite a reason like > "Events make it too butt-ass random and it's no fun anymore", I really thought that was going to happen more en mass... maybe I should put up a poll about it... nah. Polls aren't really reliable... I'll just go by local scene information... we lost 5 people. 3 came back on later and we've gained another since. So no big deal... > THEN it's > time to start second-guessing the designer. This sort of logic is, of > course, beyond the average chirper -- all he can see is that he would've > done it differently. Yes. My world is full of myself. ~SV - Chirper

Screaming Vermillian wrote: > Oh yes. The design team is doing a wonderful job (not mentioning the > game's font change, icon misplacements, color printing mismatch, 'meh' > prize support (though better than none), apparent failure of > create-a-storyline tournaments, discountinuation of WoD1.0, apparent > inability to incorporate WoD2.0, and non existence of easy quick start > rules for noobs). I'm confused as to why you still play, since the game is so far in the toilet. John Eno

"Don't you mean hits for 2 + 3 = 5? Shadow of the wolf + 1 strength is only on the additional strike, no? " Good point. Maybe I should take it out.

In message <1115609951....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Screaming Vermillian <vermil...@yahoo.com> writes: >Oh yes. The design team is doing a wonderful job (not mentioning the >game's font change, icon misplacements, color printing mismatch, 'meh' >prize support (though better than none), Erm, apparently you are desperately confused about the difference between the Design Team (who design cards) and any graphic designers and artists that White Wolf employ. > apparent failure of >create-a-storyline tournaments, Some people ran them, some people didn't. What's that got to do with the Design Team? I would be very surprised if the Create Your Own Storyline tournaments had been a sure-fire success, as they rely on tournament organizers also being good at thinking up something inventive and unusual, yet still balanced and playable. Strangely, this is not as easy as you might think, and you don't have a brand new promo card as a draw for players. >discountinuation of WoD1.0, Nothing to do with the Design Team of V:TES! And V:TES is still set in the oWoD and is, indeed, the only thing still running in it. >apparent >inability to incorporate WoD2.0, V:TES is set in the oWoD, not the new WoD. People could kludge together a V:TES/Superman hybrid if they wanted, but it wouldn't be any more appropriate. They're different settings with different styles, aims, motivations and moods, your apparent disbelief of this notwithstanding. >and non existence of easy quick start >rules for noobs). In fact, this was tried in the past by WotC. And it died on its ass because the game needs the complexity it has to balance off the power of stealth bleed against other more indirect strategies. Why duplicate the effort, to have it die again? It is far, far better to teach players the game - which efforts like the downloadable playmat and the online tutorial are good for, as well as the demo packs of 30 cards which keep the amount of tech they're exposed to low whilst keeping the rules impact high. Come on, why, Mr Designer? WHY? Did this just come off your random Excel spreadsheet? What's your view of the WotC simplified rules and why they failed? -- James Coupe "Why do so many talented people turn out to be sexual PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D deviants? Why can't they just be normal like me and EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 look at internet pictures of men's cocks all day?" 13D7E668C3695D623D5D -- www.livejournal.com/users/scarletdemon/

On 8 May 2005 20:03:58 -0700, "kulaid871" <Kula...@yahoo.com> scrawled: >Ummm... >Don't you mean hits for 2 + 3 = 5? Shadow of the wolf + 1 strength is >only on the additional strike, no? > >I always wanted to make a haymaker+lucky blow+flesh of marble deck. >Well it seemed to like a good idea at the time. i thought haymaker gave you a strike you had to use later on. and lucky blow thus could not be used. salem http://www.users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/VtES/index.htm (replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)

James Coupe wrote: > In message <1115609951....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, > Screaming Vermillian <vermil...@yahoo.com> writes: > >Oh yes. The design team is doing a wonderful job (not mentioning the > >game's font change, icon misplacements, color printing mismatch, 'meh' > >prize support (though better than none), > > Erm, apparently you are desperately confused about the difference > between the Design Team (who design cards) and any graphic designers and > artists that White Wolf employ. Um... nothing. Damn. Coulda' sworn I'd edited my post to say "(not mentioning WW's effects on the game's font change... etc..)". Cause I knew... Just KNEW that someone like you would ruin perrfectly valid points by deflecting peoples attention away from the issue and focusing on my trivial little somewhat humourous paranthetical statement I'd made... > >discountinuation of WoD1.0, > > Nothing to do with the Design Team of V:TES! And V:TES is still set in > the oWoD and is, indeed, the only thing still running in it. Is this a good thing? > >apparent > >inability to incorporate WoD2.0, > > V:TES is set in the oWoD, not the new WoD. People could kludge together > a V:TES/Superman hybrid if they wanted, but it wouldn't be any more > appropriate. They're different settings with different styles, aims, > motivations and moods, your apparent disbelief of this notwithstanding. I love everyone's over reaction to the differences in oWoD and the new one... Its like you're almost buying in to some kind of propaganda about their differences that was created to make you purchase the product or something. :) It is true that they have different styles, aims, motivations and moods.. but wouldn't it be possible to have those expressed in the expansion? I mean, other VTES sets differ from one another in 'mood' and 'aims' and what not, right? > > >and non existence of easy quick start > >rules for noobs). > > In fact, this was tried in the past by WotC. And it died on its ass > because the game needs the complexity it has to balance off the power of > stealth bleed against other more indirect strategies. Why duplicate the > effort, to have it die again? It is far, far better to teach players > the game - which efforts like the downloadable playmat and the online > tutorial are good for, as well as the demo packs of 30 cards which keep > the amount of tech they're exposed to low whilst keeping the rules > impact high. maybe that's just the thing... attempting to show this CCG to standard working class lower tier of 'intellectual' ccgers who've tossed a few games of YuGiOh and Marvel Vs around, and they have some serious issues of attempting to play this game... I think its because the learning curve was higher than the game play payoff... > Come on, why, Mr Designer? WHY? Did this just come off your random > Excel spreadsheet? What's your view of the WotC simplified rules and > why they failed? Sure. Why not. These are quesitons. And there are answers for them. Who can answer them? Who WILL answer them? Why CAN'T they be answered? ~SV

>> Screaming Vermillian wrote: >> | about 5 years ago...). Its just funny how whenever people ask you > about >> | why you designed certain cards, you just give them a non-commital >> | answer, like "eh. I felt I outta'" Or "Because. Deal with it".) >> >> I'm not certain LSJ will answer this, but I can -- because part of my >> responsibilities at my own job are also design-oriented, and given > that >> my "audience" tends to be multiple different support groups, all of > whom >> think they know what's best for the product, the clients, and the >> company, I can quite understand the rationale here. I use a variant > of >> it on a daily basis. >> >> __ It's not an effective use of his time to provide a real answer. __ > > Yeah. You're right. I suppose it isn't a very effective use of his > time. > > It'd be fun to know, once, just once, why he designs certain cards... > Like maybe he could answer one of these questions a month. Put a cap on > it. It'd be a fun read, and aspiring CCG designers would like the > information. :) Also note that to err is human. If we knew what goes on behind the curtains, there is a possibility that one (or two) angry dissatisfied customer(s) would be right about a mistake the design team makes, which would probably ruin their credibility. The possible gain? Mental excercise for a few people who are going to keep playing anyway because VTES is just so cool to bitch about. In fact, given its complexity and peculiar play experience centered around a subtle balance between five players, and history of former abandonment and design team change I'd wager that it is one of the best card games to be bitching about. -- Bye, Daneel

Daneel wrote: > The possible gain? Mental excercise for a few people who are going to > keep playing anyway because VTES is just so cool to bitch about. In > fact, given its complexity and peculiar play experience centered > around a subtle balance between five players, and history of former > abandonment and design team change I'd wager that it is one of the > best card games to be bitching about. Right. I only bitch because I love. If I really hated it, I'd bitch once or twice and then leave, only to reemerge at a later time to bitch again to remind people that I still think said game is crap and that I'd though it hadn't improve any, despite what it's designers say. (that's be hilarious. A gaming designer who'd admit that his game had meta issues and imbalances not meant to be there!) ~SV

On 9 May 2005 03:45:00 -0700, "Screaming Vermillian" <vermil...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >discountinuation of WoD1.0, >> >> Nothing to do with the Design Team of V:TES! And V:TES is still set >in >> the oWoD and is, indeed, the only thing still running in it. > >Is this a good thing? Why not? >> >apparent >> >inability to incorporate WoD2.0, >> >> V:TES is set in the oWoD, not the new WoD. People could kludge >together >> a V:TES/Superman hybrid if they wanted, but it wouldn't be any more >> appropriate. They're different settings with different styles, aims, >> motivations and moods, your apparent disbelief of this >notwithstanding. > >I love everyone's over reaction to the differences in oWoD and the new >one... Its like you're almost buying in to some kind of propaganda >about their differences that was created to make you purchase the >product or something. :) Old fan's base propaganda is still propaganda, and no different from regular marketing propaganda. I have the same feeling that some are buying old fan's anger about WW "killing the oWoD" to conclude - sometimes without even reading the new books - that the nWoD is very similar to the old one. Both propaganda do not stand up unscathed from a careful observance of the two scenarios. >It is true that they have different styles, aims, motivations and >moods.. Geez. They have different styles, aims, motivations and moods. What had been left as similarities? Systems and rules? Part of it is the same, part isn't. The conclusion is that almost everything is different. What's the point then in combining both? but wouldn't it be possible to have those expressed in the >expansion? I mean, other VTES sets differ from one another in 'mood' >and 'aims' and what not, right? All of these expansions have their differences, but they share the same main story arc and rules. nWoD does not. It's like saying that WW can do a Buffy expansion because the two games share the theme (vampires) and a few supernatural prowess always attributed to vampires, or saying that they could try a M:tG expansion because they have something in common regarding mechanics - tapping, directly attacking your adversary's life/pool, blocking etc. There are a lot of other issues involved, from "mood" (as you say) to target market. best, Fabio "Sooner" Macedo V:TES National Coordinator for Brazil Giovanni Newsletter Editor ----------------------------------------------------- V for Vendetta on the big screen! http://vforvendetta.warnerbros.com/

Screaming Vermillian a écrit : > Daneel wrote: > >>The possible gain? Mental excercise for a few people who are going to >> keep playing anyway because VTES is just so cool to bitch about. In >> fact, given its complexity and peculiar play experience centered >> around a subtle balance between five players, and history of former >> abandonment and design team change I'd wager that it is one of the >> best card games to be bitching about. > > > Right. I only bitch because I love. If I really hated it, I'd bitch > once or twice and then leave, only to reemerge at a later time to bitch > again to remind people that I still think said game is crap and that > I'd though it hadn't improve any, despite what it's designers say. you mean you 'll become the famoure Andrew clone ? :)

"Emmit Svenson" <emmits...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1115558653....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Pariah's special is only a disadvantage when it isn't an advantage. Use > him in decks with excess masters you want to get rid of later in the > game (Galaric's Legacy, Zillah's Valley, Info Highway, Parthenon) and > he's almost as good as the Barrens. Damn, damn, DAMN!!! Too many deck archetypes, too little TIME!!! LSJ, any chance of getting the next expansion put off until 2011 so that I can have a chance to get to all this shit? Fred contemplating what another 10 decks would look like in my box-o- badly-tuned-decks...

Fabio Sooner Macedo wrote: > On 9 May 2005 03:45:00 -0700, "Screaming Vermillian" > <vermil...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> >discountinuation of WoD1.0, > >> > >> Nothing to do with the Design Team of V:TES! And V:TES is still set > >in > >> the oWoD and is, indeed, the only thing still running in it. > > > >Is this a good thing? > > Why not? Oh, you LSJ apprentice you are! > >It is true that they have different styles, aims, motivations and > >moods.. > > Geez. They have different styles, aims, motivations and moods. What > had been left as similarities? Systems and rules? Part of it is the > same, part isn't. > The conclusion is that almost everything is different. What's the > point then in combining both? > > > but wouldn't it be possible to have those expressed in the > >expansion? I mean, other VTES sets differ from one another in 'mood' > >and 'aims' and what not, right? > > All of these expansions have their differences, but they share the > same main story arc and rules. nWoD does not. > > It's like saying that WW can do a Buffy expansion because the two > games share the theme (vampires) and a few supernatural prowess always > attributed to vampires, or saying that they could try a M:tG expansion > because they have something in common regarding mechanics - tapping, > directly attacking your adversary's life/pool, blocking etc. There are > a lot of other issues involved, from "mood" (as you say) to target > market. Answer me a few questions here... Do VTR vamps make babies the same way (embrace)? Do they have disciplines? Do they drink blood and use this blood to increase their attributes and fuel their disciplines? Is blood Potency really THAT different from capacity that it couldn't just be incorporated with a simple linear function? Really... what IS so different about VTR that screams "I can't coexist with VTM in a CCG setting!"? (well... other than WWs apparent statement that they would not do so, despite the fact that I don't remeber them saying this...) ~SV

In message <1115666198....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Screaming Vermillian <vermil...@yahoo.com> writes: >Right. I only bitch because I love. Could you please, for the love of all that is unholy, do something constructive instead of your incessant whining when things aren't exactly the same way you'd have done them? You really, really, REALLY aren't a re-incarnation of Richard Garfield, and your motivations are highly, highly skewed. Thanks in advance. [ quoted text not captured ]

> > Pariah's special is only a disadvantage when it isn't an advantage. Use > > him in decks with excess masters you want to get rid of later in the > > game (Galaric's Legacy, Zillah's Valley, Info Highway, Parthenon) and > > he's almost as good as the Barrens. > > i'm already doing this thanks. > the deck packs small cap !gangrels with protean. > i have some skills that i discard, and when a vamp hits torpor, i go eat > him, play gangrel conspiracy, and retrieves the master card from my ash > heap to put it on a vamp. Added Path of death and the soul to double the > weenie farming :) > the deck is fairly ok, with some disguised Desert eagle to hose long > range fighters, but still... Parih is not the best rusher in the world, > i mean he cannot rescue the weenie, and cannot rescue himself. So i was > wondering what threat he would represent to be designed like this. > > but well, i guess i'll never have an answer anyway. > it was just a burst of curiousity, i don't really care. =) You still have to discard masters for the hidden lurkers don't you? Some things I've thought of for Pariah ===> Pariah can be used for blocking - give him a Homonculous at the cost of 1 master discard. He can then untap/block/taste. Or block + Earth Meld loops. Pariah is a good stealth bleeder (pre + OBF + PRO) great stealth disciplines. If he had for/FOR he could Force of Will bleed instead ... hmmm this could be an angle. If you make him Anarch you can Gear Up for stealth. Of course with for he can Freak Drive. You could make him an anarch, and use Powerbase: Los Angeles. Use AUS vamps to Precognizant Mobility him. Then Homonculous, or Dual Form at Minor to get multiple actions per round. If you can give him 2 skill cards then you can use Emergency Preparations or Mylan. Using the Anarch angle you can Firebrand a 7+ cap and untap him that way. Lots of choices. Really depends on what you want to do with him. David

He can not Homonculous without Heidleburg Castle as he can not take undirected actions. Nor can he dual form. He needs to be untapped to Hidden Lurker.

Oops ... Yep Heidleburg will do it. Ignoring Dual Form he still has heaps of ways to untap him without the whole Master Card deal. David

James Coupe wrote: > In message <1115666198....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, > Screaming Vermillian <vermil...@yahoo.com> writes: > >Right. I only bitch because I love. > > Could you please, for the love of all that is unholy, do something > constructive Unholy AND constructive doesn't seem very... synonomous... isn't my diabolical rantings more, unholy? So in which case, my love for unholy ness seems abundant! > instead of your incessant whining when things aren't > exactly the same way you'd have done them? You really, really, REALLY > aren't a re-incarnation of Richard Garfield, and your motivations are > highly, highly skewed. What if I actually AM the spawn of richard garfeild? Ok... I'm not... but to show you that I DO try... here: http://www.thelasombra.com/fanset_vermillian.txt That's my recent attempt at constructive. All anyone did with that was just piss on it mostly, and try to help in irrelevant ways. Anyhow, it was a travisty, which I blame on the internet communities lack of ideas and support for it... :) (ah yes. The gentle art of scape goating) I'm currently working on integrating VTR into a stand alone VTES expansion with DJ_fengshui, and a card game with too much nudity in it. More on the first one later... Or by constructive, do you mean go to tournaments and win with dominate

[ quoted text not captured ] I second that. I'm currently catching up with Anarchs. I've still got most of BH, G and KMW to explore. Not to mention the stuff that still lies waiting with Bloodlines (the most "replayable" expansion so far). Please, take a break. I'm overwhealmed. ;( -- Bye, Daneel

quetzalcoatl a écrit : > Some things I've thought of for Pariah ===> > > > Pariah can be used for blocking - give him a Homonculous at the cost of > 1 master discard. He can then untap/block/taste. Or block + Earth Meld > loops. he cannot do undirected action, so no recruit for him (as someone else stated.). Ar you goign to block with a vamp which has no real intercept discipline ? not a so good idea since a 3 cap like Chandler is better for the job. > Pariah is a good stealth bleeder (pre + OBF + PRO) great stealth > disciplines. If he had for/FOR he could Force of Will bleed instead ... > hmmm this could be an angle. mmm... a bleed for 3 at stealth can be easliy achieved with 3 caps like lena rowe too :) not to mention the force of will angle would be very difficult to achieve since pariah cannot attempt undirected actions (this includes rescuing himself or playing movement of the slow body stuff) > If you make him Anarch you can Gear Up for stealth. you have to use a master card, but yes it's feasible. the rest of your suggestion are just plain fantasy : who wants to make his deck revolve around a 6 cap with such drawbacks ? If you really want the rush, use beast, ellen fence or tariq... They are more solid on many points :)

In message <1115695511.8...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, Screaming Vermillian <vermil...@yahoo.com> writes: >but to show you that I DO try... here: > >http://www.thelasombra.com/fanset_vermillian.txt Good lord, I'd never ever seen that. Even in the times at which I've taken it apart and provided feedback, at great length! Err... >That's my recent attempt at constructive. All anyone did with that was >just piss on it mostly, and try to help in irrelevant ways. Yeah, right. Explaining why your mechanics don't and can't work properly is just pissing on it in irrelevant ways, and explaining why a set of 400 cards with 5 per discipline (in one incarnation) is really, really bad for draft is just pissing on it. You appear to have confused "pissing on it" with "well-founded criticism". It's this sort of whining, where you whine for people to do something about it, then carry on whining about it when people have explained AT LENGTH why certain things are a problem, and continue advocating them without being able to address those points, that really don't help you. For instance, see the long, detailed discussion of the problems with disciplineless fallback levels - then see you continuing to advocate them in recent threads, unamended, with all the same problems. Sigh. You want feedback? Then get a grip and deal with it when you're given it. Pouting and whining that people are pissing on it won't help there, Mr "Designer". If you can't do that, don't expect anyone else to explain why they design certain vampires. I want detailed explanations of why you selected EVERY CARD in your fan- set. Why those discipline combinations? Why those inferior levels of cards? Why those superior disciplines? Why? WHY? If you won't or can't provide detailed answers for every card, why should anyone else? Also, it may be worth bearing in mind that one of the reasons you can't get the explanations you want is that they're based on cards that don't get printed. Why this version of a vampire? Well, we tried him like this, and like this, and like this, but this one seemed to work better overall, but we don't want to tell you about the other similar vampires we didn't print as we might be saving those up for printing in a later expansion, with tweaks when we get it just right. And we do know that when things from playtest have leaked (for instance) that LSJ has posted that they're less likely to feature in future expansions. Sadly, you repeatedly and completely ignore the fact that White Wolf are a business with an eye to the future. :-( [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > In message <1115695511.8...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, > Screaming Vermillian <vermil...@yahoo.com> writes: > >but to show you that I DO try... here: > > > >http://www.thelasombra.com/fanset_vermillian.txt > > Good lord, I'd never ever seen that. Even in the times at which I've > taken it apart and provided feedback, at great length! > > Err... > > > >That's my recent attempt at constructive. All anyone did with that was > >just piss on it mostly, and try to help in irrelevant ways. > > Yeah, right. Explaining why your mechanics don't and can't work > properly is just pissing on it in irrelevant ways, and explaining why a > set of 400 cards with 5 per discipline (in one incarnation) is really, > really bad for draft is just pissing on it. > > You appear to have confused "pissing on it" with "well-founded > criticism". I seem to recall that your well founded criticism occured like AFTER I made the set, and you didn't really provide me with any meaningful alternative. You didn't point out anything GOOD about it, IIRC (which I probably don't), either. > It's this sort of whining, where you whine for people to do something > about it, then carry on whining about it when people have explained AT > LENGTH why certain things are a problem, and continue advocating them > without being able to address those points, that really don't help you. > For instance, see the long, detailed discussion of the problems with > disciplineless fallback levels - then see you continuing to advocate > them in recent threads, unamended, with all the same problems. Sigh. Oh come on. How much does it REALLY kill to have this card? Do not replace. ANY (but must be a vampire): Press only to continue combat. tha: Ranged strike only. strike: Steal one blood. THA: As above but stealth two. > You want feedback? Then get a grip and deal with it when you're given > it. Pouting and whining that people are pissing on it won't help there, > Mr "Designer". If you can't do that, don't expect anyone else to > explain why they design certain vampires. Ok, Mr "critic". BTW. What have YOU done for the VTES community? :) > I want detailed explanations of why you selected EVERY CARD in your fan- > set. Why those discipline combinations? Why those inferior levels of > cards? Why those superior disciplines? Why? WHY? If you won't or > can't provide detailed answers for every card, why should anyone else? Really? I'm glad you asked! I have reasons. The discipline combinations were done to try to graft together multiple vampires in the same crypt, I tried to maximize that... I just kinda' grabbed the inferior levels of a lot of things in the regular game and copied them, only tweaked them, same with the superiors. Some were just created, but I choose them over other incarnations due to interaction with certain other cards in the set... there may be a dozen or so cards that were thrown in, 'just because'. ALl the vampires were completely random though... mostly. I tried to maximize the number of Out of clan disciplines, and tried to make them the wacky ones (ser obt, etc...) and tried to give each of them meaningful specials that would assist with the clans and mixed clans main strategies. Would you like more? (granted, my reasons were reasons at the time, and are probably full of errors due to my grand design attempt, and were probably doomed to irrelevence because it probably truely IS impossible to graft together all disciplines and most clans together in a 400 card set. But at least I tried, foo'). > Also, it may be worth bearing in mind that one of the reasons you can't > get the explanations you want is that they're based on cards that don't > get printed. Why this version of a vampire? Well, we tried him like > this, and like this, and like this, but this one seemed to work better > overall, but we don't want to tell you about the other similar vampires > we didn't print as we might be saving those up for printing in a later > expansion, with tweaks when we get it just right. And we do know that > when things from playtest have leaked (for instance) that LSJ has posted > that they're less likely to feature in future expansions. > > Sadly, you repeatedly and completely ignore the fact that White Wolf are > a business with an eye to the future. :-( Poop on the future. What's their 20 year plan? (remember THAT thread?) How woud YOU like me to contribute to the VTES community? What's acceptable to you? How have YOU contributed to the VTES community? Is that acceptable for ME to do? ~SV

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Screaming Vermillian wrote: | Derek Ray wrote: | |>__ It's not an effective use of his time to provide a real answer. __ | | It'd be fun to know, once, just once, why he designs certain cards... | Like maybe he could answer one of these questions a month. Put a cap on | it. It'd be a fun read, and aspiring CCG designers would like the | information. :) You don't get it. You can't just "put a cap on it". The harpies will flock to the single question, and generate endless threads of garbage related to that question. Look at how many people cite the formula for creating vamps, and STILL try to pick apart vamps that somehow don't fit that formula -- when LSJ himself said that it was only a guideline. You see? Guideline... yet many people want to consider it holy writ. And as far as "aspiring CCG designer" ... you have a long way to go before you can even consider yourself an aspiring game designer, honestly. You need a good solid grounding in what makes games "fun" and "replayable" -- and your posts show you aren't really sure of what that is yourself. CCG designer? That niche filled up long ago, and the wait queue you're at the end of is longer than you could possibly imagine. Besides, I suspect CCGs are on the way out right now. I doubt we'll ever see another Pokemon, L5R or Shadowfist, much less a Magic or V:TES - -- everything from here forward is likely to be just mass-produced dreck. Oh well; time to look forward to whatever the next thing is. |>To sum up, by trying to seriously answer in the first place, all you | do |>is open the door to gallons of thought-free second-guessing by | chirpers, | | ooo. I've gotta' add that to my list of names I've been called by | old-timers-too-stuck-in-their-ways-to-have-a-good-time-poking-fun-at-things. | (oh wait... sorry. I guess I just name called... oops) More evidence that you don't get it. You don't fool anyone here by retreating to your standard "oh, i was just kidding" defense when someone kicks your arguments in the nuts and you realize you didn't have a leg to stand on. You weren't kidding, you weren't poking fun; you were in full-on whine/wheedle mode, and now you're all pissy because what worked when you were 7 no longer works now, and you're not getting what you want. Such a shame; time to grow up already. |>and then you spend a whole lot of time defending a decision that |>frankly, there's no need to defend. The sales record of each of the |>sets speaks for itself; clearly the Design Team is doing an excellent |>job creating new sets, because the sets KEEP SELLING and people KEEP |>PLAYING. James has already chewed you up quite well on this one, but I can't resist. | Oh yes. The design team is doing a wonderful job (not mentioning the | game's font change, icon misplacements, color printing mismatch, 'meh' font change: responsibility of art staff. Show evidence that it affected set sales? Icon placements: responsibility of layout/art staff. What do you mean by "misplaced"? Are you talking about the silver-dot problem on the sleeves? Eh. That's minor. Good thing it didn't affect set sales any. Color printing mismatch: responsibility of printer, but I have no idea what you're talking about -- I don't remember any mismatches. It sounds like you're mostly just making stuff up here. | prize support (though better than none), apparent failure of Prize support: WHINER. You deserve nothing for even bothering to complain. "I don't get enough free stuff, someone call the waaaaambulance!" | create-a-storyline tournaments, discountinuation of WoD1.0, apparent Create-a-Storyline not integral to set sales or continued existence of game; fault squarely placed on fans who don't give enough of a damn to, well, create a storyline. =) Discontinuation of WoD 1.0 not relevant to V:TES, except that V:TES is now the flagship and can drive the WoD, instead of events in the WoD driving it (Gehenna). This is actually a GOOD thing for V:TES, and you list it as bad? You desperately need some perspective on reality. | inability to incorporate WoD2.0, and non existence of easy quick start Inability is quite the wrong word; the design team has chosen not to so far, and that's all you can say. Has yet to be proven that it's a bad thing, considering that V:TES is supposedly writing the final story for the WoD 1.0. Given the background of WoD 2.0 and 1.0, it would actually seem to be a GOOD thing since vampires' relation to the world looks to be far different in 2.0. | rules for noobs). You mean the demo decks, which do exist, were printed, and work just fine for teaching noobs? Oh, yeah. That's right; you're just talking out your ass with no actual knowledge. Quick start rules don't work because of the nature of the game. The demo decks, on the other hand, work just fine. A true designer discovers solutions appropriate to ALL facets of the problem, not just the obvious ones. |>When a set or particular associated product doesn't sell well, |>or when hordes of people bail out of the game and cite a reason like |>"Events make it too butt-ass random and it's no fun anymore", | | I really thought that was going to happen more en mass... maybe I | should put up a poll about it... nah. Polls aren't really reliable... You're right, polls aren't reliable. Easier just to look around and see how many people are still playing. Oh yeah. Lots. |>time to start second-guessing the designer. This sort of logic is, | of course, beyond the average chirper -- all he can see is that he | would've |>done it differently. | | Yes. My world is full of myself. Yes, that is obvious to all of us. Hint: People who are this self-absorbed don't usually get jobs as game designers. - -- Derek insert clever quotation here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32) iD8DBQFCgK3ntQZlu3o7QpERAhm2AJ4pmXTOVDbDYpx6wjJ2X7wYOIoz/gCdFefN Gdbdv4uLzpiGr3V1TSIm5n0= =qWUK -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Screaming Vermillian wrote: |>In message <1115609951....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, |>Screaming Vermillian <vermil...@yahoo.com> writes: |> |>>Oh yes. The design team is doing a wonderful job (not mentioning the |>>game's font change, icon misplacements, color printing mismatch, | | Um... nothing. Damn. Coulda' sworn I'd edited my post to say "(not | mentioning WW's effects on the game's font change... etc..)". Cause I | knew... Just KNEW that someone like you would ruin perrfectly valid | points by deflecting peoples attention away from the issue and focusing | on my trivial little somewhat humourous paranthetical statement I'd | made... ...More hiding behind "I was just funnin', officer! No, really!" That said, what issue are you talking about? If you remove your highly-inaccurate parenthetical statement from that paragraph, we are left with: "Oh yes. The design team is doing a wonderful job." Do you think they aren't? Do you have the balls to come out and say you think LSJ is doing poorly and you could do better? You always spend a lot of time hinting around the issue, but I've noticed you just never quite get up the cojones to come out and say it. Not surprising, really. Hint: Grownups have the courage to say what they mean in plain, straightforward language. - -- Derek insert clever quotation here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32) iD8DBQFCgK8ctQZlu3o7QpERApeXAJ4hkwLuKR2myY1eN96cFpUaqiCiewCgv0wz /r/JrYh37SmUlvfLpD2OxSg= =9sIO -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Screaming Vermillian wrote: | Fabio Sooner Macedo wrote: | |>>>Nothing to do with the Design Team of V:TES! And V:TES is still | set in the oWoD and is, indeed, the only thing still running in it. |>> |>>Is this a good thing? |> |>Why not? | | Oh, you LSJ apprentice you are! Jealousy? | Really... what IS so different about VTR that screams "I can't coexist | with VTM in a CCG setting!"? (well... other than WWs apparent statement | that they would not do so, despite the fact that I don't remeber them | saying this...) Well, let's see: V:TES is driving the old World of Darkness. As soon as you drop V:TR in, you need to maintain continuity among the continuum - -- something that was a big effort for WW when they acquired V:TES, if you recall. They made it conform to current events in the WoD, lined it up properly, included a bunch of characters... obviously "world", to them, means "world". Gehenna happened, and now V:TES no longer has to pick and choose which characters it can and can't include -- it can put ANYTHING in it wants. And you want to tie it to an ongoing story thread again by linking it to V:TR? Wow, that's dumb. - -- Derek insert clever quotation here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32) iD8DBQFCgLAvtQZlu3o7QpERAulXAJ9mGzHeyw3zcQ6kQkrynZpO7z/05gCeKJn7 hr1WB9Ts+dnE0Rw7Pxc8qEA= =Lu/o -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Derek Ray wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Screaming Vermillian wrote: > | Fabio Sooner Macedo wrote: > | > |>>>Nothing to do with the Design Team of V:TES! And V:TES is still > | set in the oWoD and is, indeed, the only thing still running in it. > |>> > |>>Is this a good thing? > |> > |>Why not? > | > | Oh, you LSJ apprentice you are! > > Jealousy? Oh yeah. When I get to start explaining myself with those two words and have people not question me again... that's TRUE power. ENvious of that power. How does one obtain it? Game designer? Callous? President of USA? Apathy? > Well, let's see: V:TES is driving the old World of Darkness. As soon > as you drop V:TR in, you need to maintain continuity among the continuum > - -- something that was a big effort for WW when they acquired V:TES, if > you recall. Yep. But they can have continuity within VTR and then continuity on the VTM side. Two seperate continuities!. One great game! VTES! (it'll work even better when they make WoD3.0 in 10 years...) > They made it conform to current events in the WoD, lined it > up properly, included a bunch of characters... obviously "world", to > them, means "world". Gehenna happened, and now V:TES no longer has to > pick and choose which characters it can and can't include -- it can put > ANYTHING in it wants. ANYTHING? Even VTR side sets? > And you want to tie it to an ongoing story thread again by linking it to > V:TR? Wow, that's dumb. Dumb, or PURE GENIOUS?!? No it probably is dumb, but at least I'm toiling on something.. ya'll are sitting there, building DECKS! Losers! > insert clever quotation here "Do you know where your towel is?" ~SV

Derek Ray wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Screaming Vermillian wrote: > |>In message <1115609951....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, > |>Screaming Vermillian <vermil...@yahoo.com> writes: > |> > |>>Oh yes. The design team is doing a wonderful job (not mentioning the > |>>game's font change, icon misplacements, color printing mismatch, > | > | Um... nothing. Damn. Coulda' sworn I'd edited my post to say "(not > | mentioning WW's effects on the game's font change... etc..)". Cause I > | knew... Just KNEW that someone like you would ruin perrfectly valid > | points by deflecting peoples attention away from the issue and focusing > | on my trivial little somewhat humourous paranthetical statement I'd > | made... > > ...More hiding behind "I was just funnin', officer! No, really!" That's the sweet thing about the internet. Anything one says or does can be attributed to "haha! Its all jus a jokezor! LOLOL!" BTW: You gave me that humor BS excuse once on IRC yourself, ya' hiding hider calling other hiders hiders, you. > That said, what issue are you talking about? If you remove your > highly-inaccurate parenthetical statement from that paragraph, we are > left with: "Oh yes. The design team is doing a wonderful job." Do you > think they aren't? He's doing alright with what he had handed to him. He's made some decisions, and I'm sure he's had some decisions made FOR him that he has to deal with. As a result of these he's probably doing the best he can, though I can't say for sure, because I don't know exactly what kind of limitations he is under... so its tough for me to tell if he is doing a good job or not. Which makes me think, perhaps he isn't... tough call. In general, however, if I would have to rate the design teams 'job performance', not like I'm qualified by any professional standards, just BUT LOADS of experience playing other ccgs, I would have to give them something less than a nine, but definitely higher than a 5... a 7 maybe? > Do you have the balls to come out and say you think > LSJ is doing poorly and you could do better? I have the balls to think that VTR and VTES can combine. I have the balls to try to play without dom. I have the balls to create into a parachute and glide from the heavens. I have the balls to try to create a draftable set, and create drafting/limited discussions. I have the balls to tic off you conformist "yeah" sayers into trying to say Nay once in a while. These balls were made for walking. Whose got da' biggest balls of dem all? > You always spend a lot of > time hinting around the issue, but I've noticed you just never quite get > up the cojones to come out and say it. Not surprising, really. Meh. I don't want to completely ruin the possibility by getting LSJs job by telling him to FOAD. oh shit... I think I just told him indirectly to FOAD... Fuck. > Hint: Grownups have the courage to say what they mean in plain, > straightforward language. Poo. Guess I have to go back to college then and learn to be a grown up... or wait... is it the other way around? I've expressed many a time that I'm unsatisfied with elements of VTES. Isn't that enough proof that I think there's something that VTES can and should have but doesn't? Do I have to spell it out? Yes. I think that, given a few more years of CCG experience and were it to be my full time job that I cared about, I could do a decent job of designing cards for VTES. Better than LSJ? Probably not, but different, yes. Which might just be what VTES needs. Or it doesn't. It really is tough for me to determine what VTES needs, I just know that it lacks, s I create, until what I've created seems to fulfill what it lacks. ~SV

Derek Ray wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Screaming Vermillian wrote: > | Derek Ray wrote: > | > |>__ It's not an effective use of his time to provide a real answer. __ > | > | It'd be fun to know, once, just once, why he designs certain cards... > | Like maybe he could answer one of these questions a month. Put a cap on > | it. It'd be a fun read, and aspiring CCG designers would like the > | information. :) > > You don't get it. You can't just "put a cap on it". The harpies will > flock to the single question, and generate endless threads of garbage > related to that question. Look at how many people cite the formula for > creating vamps, and STILL try to pick apart vamps that somehow don't fit > that formula -- when LSJ himself said that it was only a guideline. You > see? Guideline... yet many people want to consider it holy writ. that's true. Guidelines exist to be broken. And some cards DO need to be stronger than other cards. > And as far as "aspiring CCG designer" ... you have a long way to go > before you can even consider yourself an aspiring game designer, > honestly. Oh whatever. If I aspire to make ccg's in my free time, then I'm an aspiring CCG designer. Its not like "aspiring ccg designer" is a title that requires a 2 year degree or anything. You people make me look out to be like I'm trying to become the next richard garfeild or something... and really. How good WAS garfeild? Its like Einstein... not that smart, really. Just happened to think up something that was going to be created anyhow, but did it before anyone else. > You need a good solid grounding in what makes games "fun" and > "replayable" -- and your posts show you aren't really sure of what that > is yourself. I'm researching. The games mildly fun to me, but in a weird way I don't think anyone will understand. What about my post regarding 'fun' in ccgs (cross post of a MTG article)? See. I'm concerned about what's 'fun'. > CCG designer? That niche filled up long ago, and the wait > queue you're at the end of is longer than you could possibly imagine. > Besides, I suspect CCGs are on the way out right now. I doubt we'll > ever see another Pokemon, L5R or Shadowfist, much less a Magic or V:TES > - -- everything from here forward is likely to be just mass-produced > dreck. Oh well; time to look forward to whatever the next thing is. True. Interactive sex games. Yeah. That's it. Hot. > old-timers-too-stuck-in-their-ways-to-have-a-good-time-poking-fun-at-things. > | (oh wait... sorry. I guess I just name called... oops) > > More evidence that you don't get it. You don't fool anyone here by > retreating to your standard "oh, i was just kidding" defense when > someone kicks your arguments in the nuts and you realize you didn't have > a leg to stand on. Oh whatever. I was kicking in the nuts, but I still think more than 50% ofr my ideas, if not their content, have validity. > You weren't kidding, you weren't poking fun; No, but I can Kid and Poke fun whilst generating legitimate discussion. Or can't I? Apparently not, or maybe that's NOT MY FAULT (tm. By you. You Tmed that I think). > you > were in full-on whine/wheedle mode, and now you're all pissy because > what worked when you were 7 no longer works now, and you're not getting > what you want. > > Such a shame; time to grow up already. And telling people to 'just grow up already' and to just rebuke what they say instantaneously because of some crap or another is a rather knee jerk response on the internet too. > | Oh yes. The design team is doing a wonderful job (not mentioning the > | game's font change, icon misplacements, color printing mismatch, 'meh' Right. You're right. A ton of the crap I cite is not the design teams job. What I meant to say was WW, but I was wrong initially so you'veevery reason to be a dick about this. Good. > font change: responsibility of art staff. Show evidence that it > affected set sales? Sure. Fund me and give me some survey staff and I just might. > Icon placements: responsibility of layout/art staff. What do you mean > by "misplaced"? Are you talking about the silver-dot problem on the > sleeves? Eh. That's minor. Good thing it didn't affect set sales any. *sigh* some discipline symbols on KMW set are misplaced. Centered incorrectly on the right hand side... you didn't notice? Didn't someone talk about that here before? > Color printing mismatch: responsibility of printer, but I have no idea > what you're talking about -- I don't remember any mismatches. It sounds > like you're mostly just making stuff up here. Master cards are a greener green than before... Stuff like that. > | prize support (though better than none), apparent failure of > > Prize support: WHINER. You deserve nothing for even bothering to > complain. "I don't get enough free stuff, someone call the waaaaambulance!" Oh whatever. I'm not saying that "all your prizes belongs to me" or anything. I'm just saying it could be better, perhaps, to motivate sales. Maybe its good enough where it is, maybe not. But I'm sure as hell NEVER going to be going to the NAC JUST because it has crappy prize support. Hell. The EC has better prize support, but its not even company provided, AFAIK. You get it? > | create-a-storyline tournaments, discountinuation of WoD1.0, apparent > > Create-a-Storyline not integral to set sales or continued existence of > game; fault squarely placed on fans who don't give enough of a damn to, > well, create a storyline. =) True. But I think Create a Storyline was just a waste of the 20 hours it took for the staff of WW to throw together. Or maybe not. It did give us something to talk about, and I suppose talking about a game might generate sales of a game... > Discontinuation of WoD 1.0 not relevant to V:TES, except that V:TES is > now the flagship and can drive the WoD, instead of events in the WoD > driving it (Gehenna). This is actually a GOOD thing for V:TES, and you > list it as bad? You desperately need some perspective on reality. I'm unsure in to whether its a good thing or bad thing. On the short term, its a good thing. Let people play VTM inspired CCG whilst they still remember VTM. But in a few years when we start forgetting and there are kiddies who like VTR and are maybe looking to suppliment their WW collection with something else... > | inability to incorporate WoD2.0, and non existence of easy quick start > > Inability is quite the wrong word; the design team has chosen not to so > far, and that's all you can say. Has yet to be proven that it's a bad > thing, considering that V:TES is supposedly writing the final story for > the WoD 1.0. Given the background of WoD 2.0 and 1.0, it would actually > seem to be a GOOD thing since vampires' relation to the world looks to > be far different in 2.0. See above, but also see discussion on VTR + VTES ccg thread elsewhere... I (and some locals) think its possible, but whether or not it would be good for WW. Once again, see last paragraph... > | rules for noobs). > > You mean the demo decks, which do exist, were printed, and work just > fine for teaching noobs? BAH! Have you tried teaching a pokemon kid to play VTES? Have you tried teaching joe booster pack how to play VTES? You know... the guy that plays historical war games and Yu Gi Oh with his kid, and he asks about your game? You whip out the demo decks and proceed to explain the game. He buys a few product, but then, after two weeks of showing up, still hasn't understood the game yet, and keeps getting his ass handed to him, despite your best efforts in handing out cards and trying to teach him? Have you? Sure. Some people get this ccg. But others, the basic game mechanics are a stretch... > Oh, yeah. That's right; you're just talking out your ass with no actual > knowledge. Quick start rules don't work because of the nature of the > game. Maybe, maybe not. Have YOU TRIED to create quick start rules yorself, so that you can see that they do or do not work? > The demo decks, on the other hand, work just fine. If by fine you mean a deck with NO focus, little to NO jumping point in deck construction for the noobs, etc... sure. > A true > designer discovers solutions appropriate to ALL facets of the problem, > not just the obvious ones. Right... so what am I doing? Discussing the problems, discovering what people's opinions of the facets are, and trying to adress them. Jeesus. And all you're doing is shitting all over me with comments like "oh grow up" etc... wait. Unless that "oh grow up" none sense is also just a big fat jokezor too? (but yes, things you say sometimes are helpful. thankyou) > |>When a set or particular associated product doesn't sell well, > |>or when hordes of people bail out of the game and cite a reason like > |>"Events make it too butt-ass random and it's no fun anymore", > | > | I really thought that was going to happen more en mass... maybe I > | should put up a poll about it... nah. Polls aren't really reliable... > > You're right, polls aren't reliable. Easier just to look around and see > how many people are still playing. Oh yeah. Lots. No ya' freak. Not "how many people pay the game" but "how many people left the game initially due to events". thank you, king of deflection. > |>time to start second-guessing the designer. This sort of logic is, > | of course, beyond the average chirper -- all he can see is that he > | would've > |>done it differently. > | > | Yes. My world is full of myself. > > Yes, that is obvious to all of us. Hint: People who are this > self-absorbed don't usually get jobs as game designers. Oh poo. Looks like I'll have to get your job instead... > insert clever quotation here "alternative victory condition: salt" ~SV

On 10 May 2005 07:12:13 -0700, Screaming Vermillian <vermil...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Yes. I think that, given a few more years of CCG experience and were it > to be my full time job that I cared about, I could do a decent job of > designing cards for VTES. Better than LSJ? Probably not, but different, > yes. Which might just be what VTES needs. Or it doesn't. It really is > tough for me to determine what VTES needs, I just know that it lacks, s > I create, until what I've created seems to fulfill what it lacks. You're gonna get busted for this. Until that time though, consider how LSJ has shown remarkable flexibility when designing the sets. I suspect very little that leaves his hands are stuff "he'd personally like to be in the ccg". It's stuff he believes would make the CCG better. If he sees an idea that is beneficial to the game, he is above pride in incorporating it. He is also doing a good job delegating parts of his desing job to invite some more creativity and some freash ideas. The fact that he is an absoulte bullshit factory when it comes to Net- -Reping is an entirely different issue, one that I suspect has more to do with his cynical personality and immense exposure to VTES players who seem to know everything better than him (plus me). -- Bye, Daneel

On Tue, 10 May 2005 08:49:43 -0400, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > | create-a-storyline tournaments, discountinuation of WoD1.0, apparent > > Create-a-Storyline not integral to set sales or continued existence of > game; fault squarely placed on fans who don't give enough of a damn to, > well, create a storyline. =) > > Discontinuation of WoD 1.0 not relevant to V:TES, except that V:TES is > now the flagship and can drive the WoD, instead of events in the WoD > driving it (Gehenna). This is actually a GOOD thing for V:TES, and you > list it as bad? You desperately need some perspective on reality. Would you please explain why you think this is a "GOOD" thing? -- Bye, Daneel

Daneel wrote: > On 10 May 2005 07:12:13 -0700, Screaming Vermillian > <vermil...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Yes. I think that, given a few more years of CCG experience and were it > > to be my full time job that I cared about, I could do a decent job of > > designing cards for VTES. Better than LSJ? Probably not, but different, > > yes. Which might just be what VTES needs. Or it doesn't. It really is > > tough for me to determine what VTES needs, I just know that it lacks, s > > I create, until what I've created seems to fulfill what it lacks. > > You're gonna get busted for this. what? Are the VTES net police going to come and arrest me? I can make claims that I might actually hold true. get over it. Maybe there IS someone out there that can do LSJs job better than him, given training and a full paying position. > Until that time though, consider how > LSJ has shown remarkable flexibility when designing the sets. ? Flexibility? Like... like what really? What do you mean flexibility? > I suspect > very little that leaves his hands are stuff "he'd personally like to be > in the ccg". It's stuff he believes would make the CCG better. If he > sees an idea that is beneficial to the game, he is above pride in > incorporating it. well. I wouldn't say he's into pride either. its a job. i'm sure he does his job, that being creating new cards to provide for a balanced game and for creating sales and so on. > He is also doing a good job delegating parts of his > desing job to invite some more creativity and some freash ideas. I have no evidence of this fact. Where's yours, or do you just believe in it? > The fact that he is an absoulte bullshit factory when it comes to Net- > -Reping is an entirely different issue, one that I suspect has more > to do with his cynical personality and immense exposure to VTES > players who seem to know everything better than him (plus me). meh. Maybe that's why I think what I do. I don't think he sucks, just that... its lacking. (ok. I'll say it sucks, but its not SUPER suck like cyberpunk ccg... gawd damn....) ~sv

In message <opsqkhjs...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> writes: >On Tue, 10 May 2005 08:49:43 -0400, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> >wrote: >> Discontinuation of WoD 1.0 not relevant to V:TES, except that V:TES is >> now the flagship and can drive the WoD, instead of events in the WoD >> driving it (Gehenna). This is actually a GOOD thing for V:TES, and you >> list it as bad? You desperately need some perspective on reality. > >Would you please explain why you think this is a "GOOD" thing? <IANADR> Here's one shot at it: The presence of a continuous, evolving storyline with a desire to tie things in across multiple product lines (e.g. the "Year of the..." stuff that WW did) means that V:TES can get given something inappropriate as a theme - after all, it's only one out of a dozen product lines. Certainly, other product lines could suffer in the same way but talented writers can tell a well-crafted story to square any circles. Or, if that's not possible, at least make them a little more pointy. This is less easy with card games where an overall competitive balance is necessary and, unlike in an RPG, it's difficult to intentionally hamstring certain things without printing pretty wallpaper. On a smaller scale, this can cause some major headaches for players. For instance, look at the "death" of the Tremere Antitribu. This worked into the RPG as a really nice plot. In the CCG, it caused quite a few upsets as people really wanted new !Tremere who were, as far as the card game is concerned, one of the staples of the game. As it stood, it worked out okay in the end, though it still caused some minor upsets - and the designers were able to do a good job. But would I rather a decision could have been made which was based solely on what was good for V:TES? Absolutely. </IANADR> [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <1115734333.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, Screaming Vermillian <vermil...@yahoo.com> writes: >Yes. I think that, given a few more years of CCG experience and were it >to be my full time job that I cared about, I could do a decent job of >designing cards for VTES. Based on the cards you've provided so far and your general attitude: No, you couldn't. Quit fooling yourself. [ quoted text not captured ]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Screaming Vermillian wrote: | Derek Ray wrote: | |>Jealousy? | | Oh yeah. When I get to start explaining myself with those two words and | have people not question me again... that's TRUE power. ENvious of that | power. How does one obtain it? Game designer? Callous? President of | USA? Apathy? Lack of denial noted. |>Well, let's see: V:TES is driving the old World of Darkness. As | soon |>as you drop V:TR in, you need to maintain continuity among the | continuum |>- -- something that was a big effort for WW when they acquired V:TES, | if you recall. | | | Yep. But they can have continuity within VTR and then continuity on the | VTM side. Two seperate continuities!. One great game! VTES! (it'll work | even better when they make WoD3.0 in 10 years...) Sentences like this indicate you don't even bother to think about your responses. Therefore, I won't bother to respond to it other than to say: what a stupid fucking idea. |>They made it conform to current events in the WoD, lined it |>up properly, included a bunch of characters... obviously "world", to |>them, means "world". Gehenna happened, and now V:TES no longer has | to pick and choose which characters it can and can't include -- it can | put ANYTHING in it wants. | | ANYTHING? Even VTR side sets? Anything appropriate to the World of Darkness and the setting for V:TES itself, of course. Currently, that excludes V:TR, and I would suspect is likely to for some time to come. |>And you want to tie it to an ongoing story thread again by linking it | to V:TR? Wow, that's dumb. | | Dumb, or PURE GENIOUS?!? Guess. | No it probably is dumb, but at least I'm toiling on something.. ya'll Good guess. | are sitting there, building DECKS! Losers! You know, I could spend a year toiling to roll up a huge, man-sized ball of string. But all that gets me in the end is a ball of string that nobody wants, not even me. I think first, I might be inclined to ask if anyone wanted an assload of string. - -- Derek insert clever quotation here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32) iD8DBQFCgXbLtQZlu3o7QpERAlssAKCi5uTxFzM+1c3rgAnxdphr4mifHwCfca3j qDZ+7dlz5WtZc2ZmhrUzrHU= =niEy -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Screaming Vermillian wrote: | Derek Ray wrote: |>Screaming Vermillian wrote: | |>| knew... Just KNEW that someone like you would ruin perrfectly valid |>| points by deflecting peoples attention away from the issue and | focusing |>| on my trivial little somewhat humourous paranthetical statement I'd |>| made... |> |>...More hiding behind "I was just funnin', officer! No, really!" | | That's the sweet thing about the internet. Anything one says or does | can be attributed to "haha! Its all jus a jokezor! LOLOL!" Yeah, we've noticed you believe that. Fortunately, you overuse it enough that we can kind of see through it by now. ...then again, it's pretty transparent no matter what. |>That said, what issue are you talking about? If you remove your |>highly-inaccurate parenthetical statement from that paragraph, we are |>left with: "Oh yes. The design team is doing a wonderful job." Do | you think they aren't? | | He's doing alright with what he had handed to him. He's made some What, exactly, did he have handed to him? A relatively well-designed base set with a few obvious flaws, and three expansions. And he's produced how many expansions since he was responsible for the design? By now, don't you figure that anything he was just dying to change on Day 1 has long since been done? "What he had handed to him" is really no longer relevant. | decisions, and I'm sure he's had some decisions made FOR him that he | has to deal with. As a result of these he's probably doing the best he | can, though I can't say for sure, because I don't know exactly what | kind of limitations he is under... so its tough for me to tell if he is | doing a good job or not. Which makes me think, perhaps he isn't... | tough call. Yeah, there you go, that's some great logic there. "I don't really know any of the facts, or the circumstances, or have any experience ... so I'm gonna start from "perhaps he's screwing it up" and go from there." That'll get you far. | In general, however, if I would have to rate the design teams 'job | performance', not like I'm qualified by any professional standards, | just BUT LOADS of experience playing other ccgs, I would have to give In other words, completely unqualified . :) You do realize that there's a huge difference between "trying to figure out how to build a deck and how to properly leverage the imbalances inherent in the system" and "make it up from scratch"... right? | them something less than a nine, but definitely higher than a 5... a 7 | maybe? Ooo, Mr. Generous. Don't hurt yourself there. |>Do you have the balls to come out and say you think |>LSJ is doing poorly and you could do better? | | I have the balls to think that VTR and VTES can combine. I have the No, that's the stupid. | balls to try to play without dom. I have the balls to create into a Irrelevant. | parachute and glide from the heavens. I have the balls to try to create Moronic. | a draftable set, and create drafting/limited discussions. I have the ...Without determining if there was a need for a draftable set, and instead submitting something that looked a lot more like an alternate base set... along with a number of imbalances. | balls to tic off you conformist "yeah" sayers into trying to say Nay Don't make me laugh, boy. If you think I'm a yes-man, you've obviously NEVER bothered to pay attention to anything I say, and instead focus on the fact that I don't complain publicly. I typically choose to disagree in more productive forums -- posting yet another gripe on USENET isn't the way to make changes happen, there's plenty of whining here already. | once in a while. These balls were made for walking. Whose got da' Nancy Sinatra you ain't. | biggest balls of dem all? Not you... that's for sure. |>You always spend a lot of |>time hinting around the issue, but I've noticed you just never quite | get up the cojones to come out and say it. Not surprising, really. | | Meh. I don't want to completely ruin the possibility by getting LSJs | job by telling him to FOAD. oh shit... I think I just told him | indirectly to FOAD... Fuck. Even here, you dodge and try to hide. Can't say it, huh? You really, really want to, but you're scared that somehow, disagreeing with THE MAN will mark you forever. Or perhaps you realize that as soon as you say it, you don't have any ground to stand on and defend it? |>Hint: Grownups have the courage to say what they mean in plain, |>straightforward language. | | Poo. Guess I have to go back to college then and learn to be a grown | up... or wait... is it the other way around? It usually goes in that order, from what I've seen. | I've expressed many a time that I'm unsatisfied with elements of VTES. Big fuckin' deal. I've expressed many a time that I'm unsatisfied with the total lack of regular, one-per-morning-every-morning blowjobs in my life. I feel that I shouldn't have to drive to work, that instead work should drive to me. Guess what: you being unsatisfied doesn't matter a damn bit, except to you. | Isn't that enough proof that I think there's something that VTES can | and should have but doesn't? Do I have to spell it out? Yeah, you actually do. And then you have to write it up worth a damn, explain it decently, and provide at least ONE half-arsed solution to the problem. | Yes. I think that, given a few more years of CCG experience and were it | to be my full time job that I cared about, I could do a decent job of What if it was your second job, and your full-time job was something else entirely? Could you focus enough attention and effort on it then? ~ You'll need more than just experience playing CCGs, I can tell you that. | designing cards for VTES. Better than LSJ? Probably not, but different, | yes. Which might just be what VTES needs. Or it doesn't. It really is Which is it? Better than LSJ, or not? If you think "different than LSJ" is what V:TES needs, then you're saying you could do it better. | tough for me to determine what VTES needs, I just know that it lacks, s | I create, until what I've created seems to fulfill what it lacks. Approaching the problem from the wrong end. I don't set out to write a hunk of code and hope that I happen to fix some bugs along the way, or maybe add a new feature that suddenly makes the software incredible -- just because I think the software doesn't quite work the way it should. CCGs aren't much different. If you believe there's a problem... 1. Identify the problem 2. Fully define the problem (this is where most people fall down horribly) 3. Identify a possible solution 4. Flesh out/implement the solution (this is where the rest of them fall down) in actual cards/rules. If it's tough for you to determine what V:TES needs... perhaps you should spend a lot more time playing and a lot more time analyzing, and THEN decide what to create. - -- Derek insert clever quotation here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32) iD8DBQFCgXyjtQZlu3o7QpERAnfoAKC9UyDAwyhH9bqXG5Z3OkwZ8b97cwCg9QK2 7pEXQ4b9iGpaqmuUN86UGuc= =GSQn -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Screaming Vermillian wrote: | Derek Ray wrote: | |>And as far as "aspiring CCG designer" ... you have a long way to go |>before you can even consider yourself an aspiring game designer, |>honestly. | | Oh whatever. If I aspire to make ccg's in my free time, then I'm an | aspiring CCG designer. Its not like "aspiring ccg designer" is a title Yeah, just like i'm an aspiring porn star. For people to take you seriously, you gotta actually put some effort into it. And I mean effort, not just randomly throwing thoughts out of your brain as they hit the paper. You gotta dig into the other facets and understand WHY stuff is made the way it is; what makes Cheapass Games typically very good, for example? Can any of that be applied to CCGs? | that requires a 2 year degree or anything. You people make me look out | to be like I'm trying to become the next richard garfeild or I think you make you look out to be that way _far_ more than we ever do. | something... and really. How good WAS garfeild? Its like Einstein... | not that smart, really. Just happened to think up something that was | going to be created anyhow, but did it before anyone else. I choose not to respond to the obvious troll; you should do some research before you throw dumb statements like the above around. |>You need a good solid grounding in what makes games "fun" and |>"replayable" -- and your posts show you aren't really sure of what | that is yourself. | | I'm researching. The games mildly fun to me, but in a weird way I don't | think anyone will understand. What about my post regarding 'fun' in | ccgs (cross post of a MTG article)? See. I'm concerned about what's | 'fun'. But do you really get it? Here's one: What does the average CCG player want from a game? AVERAGE, I mean, not ridiculous obsessed card-monkey like so many of us are. |>More evidence that you don't get it. You don't fool anyone here by |>retreating to your standard "oh, i was just kidding" defense when |>someone kicks your arguments in the nuts and you realize you didn't | have a leg to stand on. | | Oh whatever. I was kicking in the nuts, but I still think more than 50% | ofr my ideas, if not their content, have validity. Ideas _are_ content. Which is it? |>You weren't kidding, you weren't poking fun; | | No, but I can Kid and Poke fun whilst generating legitimate discussion. I haven't seen any of either of the above yet. | And telling people to 'just grow up already' and to just rebuke what | they say instantaneously because of some crap or another is a rather | knee jerk response on the internet too. Good thing I typically explain why I'm telling you to grow up. | Right. You're right. A ton of the crap I cite is not the design teams | job. What I meant to say was WW, but I was wrong initially so | you'veevery reason to be a dick about this. Good. Accuracy is critical when you expect to be taken seriously. |>font change: responsibility of art staff. Show evidence that it |>affected set sales? | | Sure. Fund me and give me some survey staff and I just might. Funny stuff. How many printings did Sabbat War sell out? How many did Dark Sovereigns, Ancient Hearts, and Sabbat sell out? Don't need survey staff to figure THAT out. Don't even need funding. Don't even need to use Sabbat War as the example; just need to go back to the question we asked awhile ago: "What does the average CCG player want from a game?" Hint: "matching fonts between sets" doesn't rate in his top 10. |>Icon placements: responsibility of layout/art staff. What do you | mean |>by "misplaced"? Are you talking about the silver-dot problem on the |>sleeves? Eh. That's minor. Good thing it didn't affect set sales | | any. | | *sigh* some discipline symbols on KMW set are misplaced. Centered | incorrectly on the right hand side... you didn't notice? Didn't someone | talk about that here before? No, I didn't notice. I own about three packs of KMW total. and wow, that's ... minor. I mean... minor. Blame the visual proofers if you like, but I think we should probably go back to our earlier question to see if this was a major tragedy, or a minor mistake. (This still isn't gonna rate in Average Dude's top 10.) |>Color printing mismatch: responsibility of printer, but I have no | idea |>what you're talking about -- I don't remember any mismatches. It | sounds |>like you're mostly just making stuff up here. | | Master cards are a greener green than before... Stuff like that. Maybe 9th on Average Dude's list, if it even got there at all -- changing the Master backgrounds from grey to green was far more likely to be noticed. |>| prize support (though better than none), apparent failure of |> |>Prize support: WHINER. You deserve nothing for even bothering to |>complain. "I don't get enough free stuff, someone call the | waaaaambulance!" | | Oh whatever. I'm not saying that "all your prizes belongs to me" or | anything. I'm just saying it could be better, perhaps, to motivate | sales. Maybe its good enough where it is, maybe not. But I'm sure as No, really, this is just stupid. Average Dude doesn't play THAT many tournaments and doesn't make the finals when he does anyway. He could give a rat's ass about prize support; that's for Mr. Suitcase, not him, and he knows it. | hell NEVER going to be going to the NAC JUST because it has crappy | prize support. Hell. The EC has better prize support, but its not even | company provided, AFAIK. You get it? Yeah, I get that you're a frickin' whiner who expects something for nothing. I think I hear the waaaambulance coming now. "Oh noes, I can't go to the biggest gathering of the best players in North America and play in the Championship because there's not enough priiiiize supporrttt... waaaahhh... nevermind that I probably won't finish in a position to win some ANYWAY, waaaahhhh." You ain't that good, kid. A lot of people who ARE that good still totaled 0VP in the Championships. |>game; fault squarely placed on fans who don't give enough of a damn | to, well, create a storyline. =) | | True. But I think Create a Storyline was just a waste of the 20 hours | it took for the staff of WW to throw together. Or maybe not. It did | give us something to talk about, and I suppose talking about a game | might generate sales of a game... Not all ideas succeed at first glance. The correct question here is: why were the Storyline formats so popular, but Create-a-Storyline wasn't? Best beginning point: People prefer just playing the game. |>Discontinuation of WoD 1.0 not relevant to V:TES, except that V:TES | is |>now the flagship and can drive the WoD, instead of events in the WoD |>driving it (Gehenna). This is actually a GOOD thing for V:TES, and | you |>list it as bad? You desperately need some perspective on reality. | | I'm unsure in to whether its a good thing or bad thing. On the short | term, its a good thing. Let people play VTM inspired CCG whilst they | still remember VTM. But in a few years when we start forgetting and | there are kiddies who like VTR and are maybe looking to suppliment | their WW collection with something else... Then a few years from now, perhaps it will be appropriate. Right now, V:TES should be enjoying the fact that it's not held hostage to events in the WoD anymore, and forced to march in lockstep with them (Abominations are probably not something the WoD would've brought back to prominence, you know?) I wonder if a few years from now, we'll even have that many people playing. 10 years is a long, long time for a CCG, and while you can try to ride it forever, there's a time when it simply peters out. I don't think that V:TES will die from anything internally, or any LACK of something internally; I think pressures external to the game will simply make it 2nd tier in most peoples' lives, and it'll eventually just.. you know.. not be played. No fanfare, no incredibly broken stuff... just tumbleweeds, eh? |>| rules for noobs). |> |>You mean the demo decks, which do exist, were printed, and work just |>fine for teaching noobs? | | BAH! Have you tried teaching a pokemon kid to play VTES? Have you tried | teaching joe booster pack how to play VTES? You know... the guy that A Pokemon kiddie doesn't want to play V:TES. The demo deck works great in this instance; it shows the kid the game, he says "wow, that's too fucking complicated", and takes his coin back to Pokemon and starts flipping again. | plays historical war games and Yu Gi Oh with his kid, and he asks about | your game? You whip out the demo decks and proceed to explain the game. And you know as you start that he ain't gonna ever stick around, because his kid already thinks it's boring and the guy himself probably isn't even that good a Yu-Gi-Oh player -- so he's gonna get smeared in this. Wargamers? Come on, man. It's one thing to try to sell the game, it's another thing to correctly select your target audience. Ain't nothin' gonna make that guy play. Demo to him, and judge from there whether the light's shining in his eyes or not. You can tell pretty easily. | He buys a few product, but then, after two weeks of showing up, still | hasn't understood the game yet, and keeps getting his ass handed to | him, despite your best efforts in handing out cards and trying to teach | him? Have you? Have I? Oh, yes, you betcha. The game isn't for everyone, and never will be. I don't mind demoing to that Civil War recreationist dude (well, I kind of do, because I know he ain't gonna be playin') -- but I know better than to think there's any set of quick-start rules that's gonna light up this guy's candle. | Sure. Some people get this ccg. But others, the basic game mechanics | are a stretch... And you'd spend more time and effort chasing the impossible dream? |>Oh, yeah. That's right; you're just talking out your ass with no | actual |>knowledge. Quick start rules don't work because of the nature of the |>game. | | Maybe, maybe not. Have YOU TRIED to create quick start rules yorself, | so that you can see that they do or do not work? Yes. They always require one critical ingredient that most new players don't have: a custom-built quick start deck, because an 80/12 that's tuned for 4/5 players is just too damn big to really get a feel for things. Even the "starter decks" aren't designed for quick duels; so no matter what rules you try to glue onto the game, you're still stuck with the decks. Use the demo decks, and suddenly you realize you don't have to change the rules; the decks are tuned for exactly what they're gonna be used for, demoing -- and in 2-4 player groups, no less. |> The demo decks, on the other hand, work just fine. | | If by fine you mean a deck with NO focus, little to NO jumping point in | deck construction for the noobs, etc... sure. They're demo decks. They're not starter decks. See above for the difference. "No focus" is being covered in the thread titled "barbed wire". No focus good thing; deck do a little of everything, people get a feel for the game, decide they want a deck that does more of thing "X". Start from there. |>A true |>designer discovers solutions appropriate to ALL facets of the | problem, not just the obvious ones. | | Right... so what am I doing? Discussing the problems, discovering what | people's opinions of the facets are, and trying to adress them. Jeesus. Already down the wrong path, and you even had it spelled out. People's opinions?? What does that matter? You think the average crowd on the newsgroup is representative of how the game is played in cities everywhere? You gotta be kidding me. Discuss the problems endlessly all you want, but you need to lean in and really THINK about what you're discussing. So far, all I really see from you is unfocused ramble and complaints that "IT LACKS!". Well, no shit. Nothing's perfect -- but damn, at least TRY a structured approach to determine if there IS a problem, and then what exactly the problem is. | And all you're doing is shitting all over me with comments like "oh | grow up" etc... wait. Unless that "oh grow up" none sense is also just | a big fat jokezor too? (but yes, things you say sometimes are helpful. | thankyou) Yeah, I'd like to call it constructive criticism, but I'm sure that would just cause all my fans to come out of the woodwork and yell about how I mostly practice destructive criticism. So they can call it what they want; I'll just say that I calls 'em like I sees 'em. |>You're right, polls aren't reliable. Easier just to look around and | see |>how many people are still playing. Oh yeah. Lots. | | No ya' freak. Not "how many people pay the game" but "how many people | left the game initially due to events". thank you, king of deflection. If the latter is a significant number, then the former will be as well. ~ The odds of EXACTLY that many new players finding the game incredibly fascinating and joining in such numbers as to offset the mass-quit of frustrated players? Tell you what, dude who won the Superfecta and then left his ticket behind had a better chance. Also, the latter is correctly stated as "how many people left the game permanently", not "initially". Leaving for two weeks and coming back is called "taking a break", not "quitting". |>Yes, that is obvious to all of us. Hint: People who are this |>self-absorbed don't usually get jobs as game designers. | | Oh poo. Looks like I'll have to get your job instead... I don't see myself losing sleep over this. Want my boss' email address? ~ You can send him a resume, but I'll warn you; he's a big fan of accuracy, too. You might encounter unexpected difficulty. - -- Derek insert clever quotation here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32) iD8DBQFCgYhFtQZlu3o7QpERAnvSAKCjrp8MEF7BARz/M2j25qPIzWSNTgCdE0Zf 2l7FLP39DoyzCOxNAaLmjTI= =0Ear -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 [ quoted text not captured ] Until Gehenna, V:TES was chained to the World of Darkness very closely. ~ This meant that as things happened in the WoD, they'd be reflected in V:TES. The overall "theme" of the WoD couldn't be violated, so certain things could NEVER be introduced in V:TES; note how the Tremere Anti took forever to actually show up? How about Abominations? (Not popular in the WoD canon due to the 'i embrace the Chair Leg' syndrome). The signature characters from the novel series? And of course the entire Gehenna expansion was mandatory due to the storyline push at that time. Now, V:TES is in the driver's seat. They can't depart TOO far from the basic theme of the World of Darkness -- but they can certainly explore some of the lesser-known facets that aren't part of the main line. We're seeing more mages and hunters, for example, and more of a lot of things -- characters that can be brought back even though they're dead in the WoD (although that was done a couple times anyway). Who knows? There's a lot of written material out there that can be used as a sourcebook. - -- Derek insert clever quotation here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32) iD8DBQFCgYoStQZlu3o7QpERAhEjAJ46CJs3YY5tIY38i/d38JqoWzsyewCbBDFv lCPca5/xBBKsLozilpQorgo= =BwZE -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

In message <UcqdnZns14l...@giganews.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> writes: >I think first, I might be inclined to ask if >anyone wanted an assload of string. Possibly you could find a hobo somewhere who'd trade it for those once- a-morning blowjobs you want? [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <LeidncbRZ8y...@giganews.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> writes: >We're seeing more mages and hunters, for example, and more of a lot of >things -- characters that can be brought back even though they're dead >in the WoD (although that was done a couple times anyway). I've always been mildly in favour of a "Hunters Hunted" themed expansion. Not that you could get away with it for an entire expansion, most likely - unless it was one of the small releases WW sometimes do to keep things on shelves and retailers lists etc., perhaps. But a set with a fun chunk of killer[0] allies would be teh c00l. Also, campaign with your local Congressman to have a stolen and re- programmed HIT Mark in the game. Yes, I know it's from the Technocracy and they're hard to work into the Jyhad properly, but I want BIG KILLER ROBOTS WITH LASERS and I want them RIGHT NOW. [0] By which I mean "killers", vampire hunters etc., rather than "super wonderful so everything else is teh sux0r". [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Screaming Vermillian wrote: > | Derek Ray wrote: > | > |>Jealousy? > | > | Oh yeah. When I get to start explaining myself with those two words and > | have people not question me again... that's TRUE power. ENvious of that > | power. How does one obtain it? Game designer? Callous? President of > | USA? Apathy? > > Lack of denial noted. Jeesus. No I'm not truly jealous. What... IS he an aspiring LSJ apprentice? See. I assumed that the rediculousness of him actually being one allowedfor my rediculous commnets, but you're going on as if it were true. > |>Well, let's see: V:TES is driving the old World of Darkness. As > | soon > |>as you drop V:TR in, you need to maintain continuity among the > | continuum > |>- -- something that was a big effort for WW when they acquired V:TES, > | if you recall. > | > | > | Yep. But they can have continuity within VTR and then continuity on the > | VTM side. Two seperate continuities!. One great game! VTES! (it'll work > | even better when they make WoD3.0 in 10 years...) > > Sentences like this indicate you don't even bother to think about your > responses. Therefore, I won't bother to respond to it other than to > say: what a stupid fucking idea. WHAT? I thought about it. What's so wrong about the comment? Its a bit radical, but if properly integrated, it would save WW's ccg market for WoD type setting for along time! > | are sitting there, building DECKS! Losers! > > You know, I could spend a year toiling to roll up a huge, man-sized ball > of string. But all that gets me in the end is a ball of string that > nobody wants, not even me. I think first, I might be inclined to ask if > anyone wanted an assload of string. Ok, but also observe that, besides just kick a few of the basics of the VTR expansions around on an xcel sheet, I haven't really toiled that much on it, and am gathering information about it... anyhow... this post has gone off topic for too long. Shall we adjourn to the seperate "flame vermillian's crazy posts" post? ~SV

James Coupe wrote: > In message <1115734333.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, > Screaming Vermillian <vermil...@yahoo.com> writes: > >Yes. I think that, given a few more years of CCG experience and were it > >to be my full time job that I cared about, I could do a decent job of > >designing cards for VTES. > > Based on the cards you've provided so far and your general attitude: My general attitude exists because I know that I DON'T have that job, nor COULD I ever have that job. My crappy cards exist because I don't have a playtesting group, nor 30-40 hours a week at designing them. Man. Get real. > No, you couldn't. Quit fooling yourself. We'll never know now will we? (though you will assume that I can't, which is just more I-work-for-the-man-and-sold-my-soul-years-ago negative thinking. :p Well... not unless I find a LOT of free time on my hands... ~SV

[ quoted text not captured ] Sorry, this reasoning is pretty unconvincing. VTES can't depart too far, but they no longer need to follow closely? Bloodlines featured the Ahrimanes (dead bloodline) and noone complained - due to the fact that VTES is supposed to be open-ended in that each game is supposed to have its own "storyline". The cards only allow that. Similarly, the Ravnos of canon were extinct (okay, reduced to bloodlinehood) since quite some time. Result? The "Week of Nightmares" card that allows certain games to replay the week of nightmares - but Final Nights Ravnos weren't scarce, and weren't any fewer in numbers than the other indie clans. Same with Gehenna and lots of other parts. The point is quite simple. Due to the freedom of interpretation (bringing stuff from a fictional world with a chronological storyline into a backward-compatible card game) I don't really think the VtM (or WoD) canon really *pushed* VTES design in any unpleasant way. The only exception is the termination of the WoD itself (Time of Judgement) that inspired the Gehenna expansion and the Gehenna cards themselves (of which I have little fondness). In fact, I'm not sure that the food for thought the original canonical storyline presented will not be amiss in future sets. With all due respect, VTES is designed by card game designers, whereas the storyline was (theoretically) written by people who were professionals in that. I don't fear for the game balance, just the originality of the theme. Of course, this only comes up once the designers decide to converge away from the ideas and concepts found in existing oWoD supplements. -- Bye, Daneel

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Daneel wrote: | On Wed, 11 May 2005 00:29:07 -0400, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: | |> Now, V:TES is in the driver's seat. They can't depart TOO far from the |> basic theme of the World of Darkness -- but they can certainly explore |> some of the lesser-known facets that aren't part of the main line. |> We're seeing more mages and hunters, for example, and more of a lot of |> things -- characters that can be brought back even though they're dead |> in the WoD (although that was done a couple times anyway). Who knows? |> There's a lot of written material out there that can be used as a |> sourcebook. | | Sorry, this reasoning is pretty unconvincing. Waaambulance for you too? | VTES can't depart too far, but they no longer need to follow closely? Right. In other words, they still need to have the primary focus on vampires, the Masquerade is still quite a primary concern, and the Methuselahs are still behind the scenes manipulating events. It's a big social almost-out-in-the-open backstabbing affair of modern intrigue. I doubt V:TR is very much like this at all, given the circumstances it's based off of (I really haven't bothered to look at it). There you go. | The point is quite simple. Due to the freedom of interpretation | (bringing stuff from a fictional world with a chronological storyline | into a backward-compatible card game) I don't really think the VtM (or | WoD) canon really *pushed* VTES design in any unpleasant way. The only Perhaps it was simply made more pleasant than it could have been due to skill on the part of the Design Team. Trust me, WoD canon had a massive influence in the direction of V:TES from the moment WW took over the reins again. - -- Derek occasionally feeds the trolls -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32) iD8DBQFCgfj9tQZlu3o7QpERAvedAKCbrmzFBbNbyoNj1cXQ90TsGm98hwCfZh86 AJ6Op7y+oRBcHx2YXrpde9k= =vcul -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Derek Ray wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Daneel wrote: > | On Wed, 11 May 2005 00:29:07 -0400, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > | > |> Now, V:TES is in the driver's seat. They can't depart TOO far from the > |> basic theme of the World of Darkness -- but they can certainly explore > |> some of the lesser-known facets that aren't part of the main line. > |> We're seeing more mages and hunters, for example, and more of a lot of > |> things -- characters that can be brought back even though they're dead > |> in the WoD (although that was done a couple times anyway). Who knows? > |> There's a lot of written material out there that can be used as a > |> sourcebook. > | > | Sorry, this reasoning is pretty unconvincing. > > Waaambulance for you too? > > | VTES can't depart too far, but they no longer need to follow closely? > > Right. In other words, they still need to have the primary focus on > vampires, the Masquerade is still quite a primary concern, and the > Methuselahs are still behind the scenes manipulating events. It's a big > social almost-out-in-the-open backstabbing affair of modern intrigue. But it already has deviated from that starting point. Players can influence some extremely potent named kindred (Augustus Giovanni for generation, Ur-Shulgri for age, the Inner Circle for behind-the-scenes-power - the IC were never named in the RPG afaik). The thought of a Methusalah controlling such creatures is far fetched. Indeed, these kindred are the ones the player was supposed to represent in the beginning. The Red List mechanic is also an example of a deviation. The Camarilla doesn't really give a damn if some Sabbat cardinal thinks Cock Robin is a criminal... Players have screamed for equal opportunities for independent clans in terms of crypt material. But in the old WoD there simply were more Brujah than Ravnos. In that setting a young brujah punk doesn't just jump on the prince and rips his head off either. It is all good things. The card game is not the RPG. Never has been and never will be. The RPG has provided inspiration to VTES - good as well as bad - opinions on the expansions are hardly uniform. Personally I feel rather relieved that VTES doesn't have to deal with more RPG stuff like Gehenna. Frede

On Wed, 11 May 2005 08:22:21 -0400, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > | The point is quite simple. Due to the freedom of interpretation > | (bringing stuff from a fictional world with a chronological storyline > | into a backward-compatible card game) I don't really think the VtM (or > | WoD) canon really *pushed* VTES design in any unpleasant way. The only > > Perhaps it was simply made more pleasant than it could have been due to > skill on the part of the Design Team. Trust me, WoD canon had a massive > influence in the direction of V:TES from the moment WW took over the > reins again. I'll try to use simple words. The design team has shown its skill in incorporating any canonical events. That is, it could design cards around WoD concepts. It has shown no skill in inventing canonical events to incorporate in the game. Nor should it be skilled at that thing; that is not about designing cards, but rather creating a foundation of concepts to be used in the game. > - -- > Derek > > occasionally trolls -- Bye, Daneel

James Coupe wrote: > In message <LeidncbRZ8y...@giganews.com>, Derek Ray > <lor...@yahoo.com> writes: > >We're seeing more mages and hunters, for example, and more of a lot of > >things -- characters that can be brought back even though they're dead > >in the WoD (although that was done a couple times anyway). > Also, campaign with your local Congressman to have a stolen and re- > programmed HIT Mark in the game. Yes, I know it's from the Technocracy > and they're hard to work into the Jyhad properly, but I want BIG KILLER > ROBOTS WITH LASERS and I want them RIGHT NOW. shits yeah. Like cybered up Vamps of the future on mars and shit. Awesome. :)

On 9 May 2005 14:14:13 -0700, "Screaming Vermillian" <vermil...@yahoo.com> wrote: >Fabio Sooner Macedo wrote: >> On 9 May 2005 03:45:00 -0700, "Screaming Vermillian" >> <vermil...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> Why not? > >Oh, you LSJ apprentice you are! Some decisions are as good as others until someone points out why one is not feasible. In this regard, I'm with LSJ. >Do VTR vamps make babies the same way (embrace)? It depends on what you're asking for. They drain blood and give a little bit of it back. But now it requires a "great force of will" to do it - i.e., spend a point of permanent Willpower. One could easily use this as an excuse to change the way "embrace cards" work. >Do they have disciplines? >Do they drink blood and use this blood to increase their attributes and >fuel their disciplines? Of course yes. But that is not the point yet. Again, you're sticking to the similarities to cloud the perception of fundamental differences. And indeed these similarities are nothing more than a given in any vampires story. Vampires have powers, they consume blood. >Is blood Potency really THAT different from capacity that it couldn't >just be incorporated with a simple linear function? Yes. >Really... what IS so different about VTR that screams "I can't coexist >with VTM in a CCG setting!"? (well... other than WWs apparent statement >that they would not do so, despite the fact that I don't remeber them >saying this...) >~SV It does not "screams" that it can't coexist with VtM. It is just different enough to cause more trouble than it's worth - that's all. best, Fabio "Sooner" Macedo V:TES National Coordinator for Brazil Giovanni Newsletter Editor ----------------------------------------------------- V for Vendetta on the big screen! http://vforvendetta.warnerbros.com/

kushiel wrote: > Screaming Vermillian wrote: > > Oh yes. The design team is doing a wonderful job (not mentioning the > > game's font change, icon misplacements, color printing mismatch, > 'meh' > > prize support (though better than none), apparent failure of > > create-a-storyline tournaments, discountinuation of WoD1.0, apparent > > inability to incorporate WoD2.0, and non existence of easy quick > start > > rules for noobs). > > I'm confused as to why you still play, since the game is so far in the > toilet. (while I'm on a fast computer I'll go back and answer some of these questions). I kid because I love. ~SV

Fabio Sooner Macedo wrote: > On 9 May 2005 14:14:13 -0700, "Screaming Vermillian" > <vermil...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >Fabio Sooner Macedo wrote: > >> On 9 May 2005 03:45:00 -0700, "Screaming Vermillian" > >> <vermil...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> > >> Why not? > > > >Oh, you LSJ apprentice you are! > > Some decisions are as good as others until someone points out why one > is not feasible. In this regard, I'm with LSJ. So if it ain't broke, don't explain? > >Do VTR vamps make babies the same way (embrace)? > > It depends on what you're asking for. They drain blood and give a > little bit of it back. > But now it requires a "great force of will" to do it - i.e., spend a > point of permanent Willpower. One could easily use this as an excuse > to change the way "embrace cards" work. Yeah, but they make babies by expending some of their own blood. Same thing in VTES (ok.. trophy progeny is a bit different) and VTM. > >Do they have disciplines? > >Do they drink blood and use this blood to increase their attributes and > >fuel their disciplines? > > Of course yes. But that is not the point yet. Again, you're sticking > to the similarities to cloud the perception of fundamental > differences. > And indeed these similarities are nothing more than a given in any > vampires story. Vampires have powers, they consume blood. meh... it was never apparent to me that Anne rice vamps used their blood for powers, just that their blood GRANTED them powers... Same thing with Blade... > >Is blood Potency really THAT different from capacity that it couldn't > >just be incorporated with a simple linear function? > > Yes. Yeah, but you could be like "blood potency 1 makes 1-3 caps 2 makes 4-6 3 makes 7-8 4 makes 9 5 makes 10 caps anything higher and you get weirder vamps... or whatever. > >Really... what IS so different about VTR that screams "I can't coexist > >with VTM in a CCG setting!"? (well... other than WWs apparent statement > >that they would not do so, despite the fact that I don't remeber them > >saying this...) > > > It does not "screams" that it can't coexist with VtM. It is just > different enough to cause more trouble than it's worth - that's all. Well, seeing as no one has really tried yet (that I know of) we'll see when it happens. I am working on it currently, so I'll let you know what kinda road blocks I hit... Not like I'm the best designer in the world though or anything... ~SV

Derek Ray wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Screaming Vermillian wrote: > | Derek Ray wrote: > |>Screaming Vermillian wrote: > |> > |>...More hiding behind "I was just funnin', officer! No, really!" > | > | That's the sweet thing about the internet. Anything one says or does > | can be attributed to "haha! Its all jus a jokezor! LOLOL!" > > Yeah, we've noticed you believe that. and I've noticed that you use it too. > Fortunately, you overuse it > enough that we can kind of see through it by now. ...then again, it's > pretty transparent no matter what. Its transparent that I'm using it to cover up for my lack of reasonable arguements? Your brevity is a cover up for your lack of reasonable explanation to your refutations, most of the time, too. > What, exactly, did he have handed to him? A relatively well-designed > base set with a few obvious flaws, and three expansions. In which there were extreme power inbalances with certain cards and key concepts. Instead of trying to fix those straight off, or go with the most recent decision by WotC to try to fix these inbalances (introduced in sabbat) he goes and ruins it by throwing in everything that was wrong with it in the first place! > By now, don't you figure that anything he was just dying to change on > Day 1 has long since been done? And yet there were some things that perhaps he should have had on his list of things to change that weren't there and so haven't been accomplished. > "What he had handed to him" is really > no longer relevant. Not anymore, no. There's little he can do about it now that he's reprinted a bunch of cards. No. All there is now is back peddling and trying to cover up for the games few (but major) design flaws and card content mistakes. > | decisions, and I'm sure he's had some decisions made FOR him that he > | has to deal with. As a result of these he's probably doing the best he > | can, though I can't say for sure, because I don't know exactly what > | kind of limitations he is under... so its tough for me to tell if he is > | doing a good job or not. Which makes me think, perhaps he isn't... > | tough call. > > Yeah, there you go, that's some great logic there. "I don't really know > any of the facts, or the circumstances, or have any experience ... so > I'm gonna start from "perhaps he's screwing it up" and go from there." True. Others believe if it ain't broke don't fix it. I like bashing some things up a bit and see if they're still alive after wards. Just a paradigm difference between me and you. > That'll get you far. And you'll rot in stasis. > | In general, however, if I would have to rate the design teams 'job > | performance', not like I'm qualified by any professional standards, > | just BUT LOADS of experience playing other ccgs, I would have to give > > In other words, completely unqualified . :) > > You do realize that there's a huge difference between "trying to figure > out how to build a deck and how to properly leverage the imbalances > inherent in the system" and "make it up from scratch"... right? sure, but I'm not making it up from scratch. I'm tweaking a previously existing ccg. And yes, I've even tried to make CCGs up from scratch too (with limited success). > | them something less than a nine, but definitely higher than a 5... a 7 > | maybe? > > Ooo, Mr. Generous. Don't hurt yourself there. It was a tough call. :) What would you rate it in the realm of ccgs? Or do you not have enough ccg experience to adaquately rate it? > |>Do you have the balls to come out and say you think > |>LSJ is doing poorly and you could do better? > | > | I have the balls to think that VTR and VTES can combine. I have the > > No, that's the stupid. You're just stubborn. > | balls to try to play without dom. I have the balls to create into a > > Irrelevant. Irrelevent to my balls content? OK, sure. But I think purposely playing without certain strong card archetypes is a bit nutsy and ballsy (or maybe just nuts. Whose nuts? Dese nuts.) > | parachute and glide from the heavens. I have the balls to try to create > > Moronic. Dude, those little japanese mammels ancestoral spirits do it all the time... what are they called... shit. name escapes me. And you can't tell me THEY'RE moronic, now can you? What if I'm really one of those things and you just didn't know it? > | a draftable set, and create drafting/limited discussions. I have the > > ...Without determining if there was a need for a draftable set, and > instead submitting something that looked a lot more like an alternate > base set... along with a number of imbalances. I spent time trying to goad people into helping me out. I REALLY wanted it to be a GROUP fan base set, but no one was feeling it... so after like 3 months of prodding for any substantial assistance I went ahead and did it myself. Granted it was less than perfect, but with another attempt, a shift of design and some assitance I think the next version could be much better. > | balls to tic off you conformist "yeah" sayers into trying to say Nay > > Don't make me laugh, boy. If you think I'm a yes-man, you've obviously > NEVER bothered to pay attention to anything I say, and instead focus on > the fact that I don't complain publicly. You seem to be full of complaints regarding PEOPLE... > I typically choose to disagree > in more productive forums What? What are the 'more productive forums'? Conclave? WW.com? > -- posting yet another gripe on USENET isn't > the way to make changes happen, there's plenty of whining here already. WAAAAAAAAA. Do YOU need the waambulence? > |>You always spend a lot of > |>time hinting around the issue, but I've noticed you just never quite > | get up the cojones to come out and say it. Not surprising, really. > | > | Meh. I don't want to completely ruin the possibility by getting LSJs > | job by telling him to FOAD. oh shit... I think I just told him > | indirectly to FOAD... Fuck. > > Even here, you dodge and try to hide. Can't say it, huh? You really, > really want to, but you're scared that somehow, disagreeing with THE MAN > will mark you forever. what? I'm already 'marked forever'. Sure. I DISAGREE WITH 'THE MAN'! Exciting. Done. > Or perhaps you realize that as soon as you say > it, you don't have any ground to stand on and defend it? What? That there are things he shoulda' done differently? That I can do the expansions better/differently? On the former, sure, I can defend that. Its the latter that's more difficult and more time intensive than the resources I have availble to prove. > | I've expressed many a time that I'm unsatisfied with elements of VTES. > > Big fuckin' deal. I've expressed many a time that I'm unsatisfied with > the total lack of regular, one-per-morning-every-morning blowjobs in my > life. I feel that I shouldn't have to drive to work, that instead work > should drive to me. Guess what: you being unsatisfied doesn't matter a > damn bit, except to you. Well, enough of me-the-unsatisfied-with-VTESers creates a demand for WW to potentially change the CCG and what not... not like that'll happen (either). > | Isn't that enough proof that I think there's something that VTES can > | and should have but doesn't? Do I have to spell it out? > > Yeah, you actually do. And then you have to write it up worth a damn, > explain it decently, and provide at least ONE half-arsed solution to the > problem. Solution? Ok... but... what's the problem to which you refer? And what are you refering to 'write it up' properly? My disagreeance with LSJ, or the proof that I can make an expansion (if the latter, I've explained the nigh impossibility of it...). And what if I provide three 1/6-arsed solutions? > | Yes. I think that, given a few more years of CCG experience and were it > | to be my full time job that I cared about, I could do a decent job of > > What if it was your second job, and your full-time job was something > else entirely? Could you focus enough attention and effort on it then? Ok, sure. I could focus some time on it. But it might take me a much longer time and I might need some support from a superior or something... like... oh HEY! THE INTERNET! Maybe SOME one online would like to assist me in my endeavors? That's why I explain what I'd like to do before I do it here usually, and try to get some feedback and some support. Hey! Who know? > ~ You'll need more than just experience playing CCGs, I can tell you that. What other kind of experience do you suppose I'll need? People skills? Math background? Computer skills? Previous game design skills? Marketing surverys? I'm curious what you think is needed. > | designing cards for VTES. Better than LSJ? Probably not, but different, > | yes. Which might just be what VTES needs. Or it doesn't. It really is > > Which is it? Better than LSJ, or not? If you think "different than > LSJ" is what V:TES needs, then you're saying you could do it better. it might be what it needs. I think many of us here could probably do a pretty good job at designing VTES expansions. I bet if they brought in a guest designer every other expansion, we'd hardly be able to notice the difference, really. > | tough for me to determine what VTES needs, I just know that it lacks, s > | I create, until what I've created seems to fulfill what it lacks. > > Approaching the problem from the wrong end. I don't set out to write a > hunk of code and hope that I happen to fix some bugs along the way, or > maybe add a new feature that suddenly makes the software incredible -- > just because I think the software doesn't quite work the way it should. > > CCGs aren't much different. If you believe there's a problem... > > 1. Identify the problem > 2. Fully define the problem (this is where most people fall down horribly) > 3. Identify a possible solution > 4. Flesh out/implement the solution (this is where the rest of them > fall down) in actual cards/rules. > > If it's tough for you to determine what V:TES needs... perhaps you > should spend a lot more time playing and a lot more time analyzing, and > THEN decide what to create. I suppose I guess I just kinda' miss on one a bit sometimes, when I hit it, I only partially define the problem, hit random, yet creative, buttons for the solution, and then hit some more random creative shiney buttons for solutions. Hey. You've mentioned a problem with VTES in that bleed is too strong. Do you have a solution? (making the other elements of the game stronger, sure, is one solution. Now hit me with a number 4, buddy). So how about this: Besides... my 'problem' ie. 'Why do vampires have the disciplines they do'. doesn't really fit into your four step program very well. My VTR into VTES one does though. its actually a solution for the problem "how do we keep new people coming into VTES" and "how can we create more demand for VTR AND VTES products simultaneously" and others. ~SV

> | Oh whatever. If I aspire to make ccg's in my free time, then I'm an > | aspiring CCG designer. Its not like "aspiring ccg designer" is a title > > Yeah, just like i'm an aspiring porn star. > > For people to take you seriously, you gotta actually put some effort > into it. And I mean effort, not just randomly throwing thoughts out of > your brain as they hit the paper. You gotta dig into the other facets > and understand WHY stuff is made the way it is; what makes Cheapass > Games typically very good, for example? Can any of that be applied to CCGs? Make cheapass VTES? Hmmm... maybe. > | something... and really. How good WAS garfeild? Its like Einstein... > | not that smart, really. Just happened to think up something that was > | going to be created anyhow, but did it before anyone else. > > I choose not to respond to the obvious troll; you should do some > research before you throw dumb statements like the above around. Hello! BS Math Physics! Right Here! I'm quite familiar with E's work, and, like I was saying, and you'll find other physicists agree with me, E's works would have been done by someone else, one or two years later, at most, if he hadn't done it himself. Its like "who invented/discovered penicilin?". Irrelevent really, SOME one did, and we should honor that person, but someone else would have, if it wasn't him. > |>You need a good solid grounding in what makes games "fun" and > |>"replayable" -- and your posts show you aren't really sure of what > | that is yourself. > | > | I'm researching. The games mildly fun to me, but in a weird way I don't > | think anyone will understand. What about my post regarding 'fun' in > | ccgs (cross post of a MTG article)? See. I'm concerned about what's > | 'fun'. > > But do you really get it? > > Here's one: What does the average CCG player want from a game? > AVERAGE, I mean, not ridiculous obsessed card-monkey like so many of us are. And that's what VTES doesn't have. I thin VTES is really onlt good for medium to high level card-monkeys. Low level card monkies don't dig this game, cause its not too playable draftwise, nor can they just kick back adn throw a game or two of this around in a quick afternoon break before dinner! > |>More evidence that you don't get it. You don't fool anyone here by > |>retreating to your standard "oh, i was just kidding" defense when > |>someone kicks your arguments in the nuts and you realize you didn't > | have a leg to stand on. > | > | Oh whatever. I was kicking in the nuts, but I still think more than 50% > | ofr my ideas, if not their content, have validity. > > Ideas _are_ content. Which is it? Nonsense. Actual seriously created cards are content. Many of the card I've created are crap, but some of the ideas around them (cycling, outferiours, keywords that assist drafting) are solid. > | And telling people to 'just grow up already' and to just rebuke what > | they say instantaneously because of some crap or another is a rather > | knee jerk response on the internet too. > > Good thing I typically explain why I'm telling you to grow up. What? When? Was it "Dude Grow Up!" your explanation, or was it why you think everything I do and say is crap your explanation of why I need to 'grow up'? Was it the fact that I say seemingly random things? Whatever. Its my stream of conssciousness style posting techniques. Your lashing out at people who are attempting to stir the game up and improve it is some evidence that YOU need to grow up. And then you lash out and whip out your WAAAAbluence concept on Daneel. Yeah. Real mature. (But funny!) > | Right. You're right. A ton of the crap I cite is not the design teams > | job. What I meant to say was WW, but I was wrong initially so > | you'veevery reason to be a dick about this. Good. > > Accuracy is critical when you expect to be taken seriously. mistyped phrases need not apply (NO EDIT FUNCTION!) > |>font change: responsibility of art staff. Show evidence that it > |>affected set sales? > | > | Sure. Fund me and give me some survey staff and I just might. > > Funny stuff. How many printings did Sabbat War sell out? > How many did Dark Sovereigns, Ancient Hearts, and Sabbat sell out? how much was printed? What's the comparitive amount sold VS. other ccgs? What percentage of VTES player stayed on and bought it, and what percentage bought less? etc... > Don't need survey staff to figure THAT out. dur. Thats not all the information you need. see above. > Don't even need funding. > Don't even need to use Sabbat War as the example; just need to go back > to the question we asked awhile ago: "What does the average CCG player > want from a game?" a decent quick playing ccg with rewardable play experience, not too random, with interaction between players, playable with just a limited card pool, and not too complicated. VTES fails on a few of these... > Hint: "matching fonts between sets" doesn't rate in his top 10. Meh. It just ticks me off. > No, I didn't notice. I own about three packs of KMW total. Whoa dude. Now I know why you're like super qualified to judge VTES and I'm not. j/k > |>Color printing mismatch: responsibility of printer, but I have no > | idea > |>what you're talking about -- I don't remember any mismatches. It > | sounds > |>like you're mostly just making stuff up here. > | > | Master cards are a greener green than before... Stuff like that. > > Maybe 9th on Average Dude's list, if it even got there at all -- > changing the Master backgrounds from grey to green was far more likely > to be noticed. yeah, that was pretty radical... > |>| prize support (though better than none), apparent failure of > |> > |>Prize support: WHINER. You deserve nothing for even bothering to > |>complain. "I don't get enough free stuff, someone call the > | waaaaambulance!" > | > | Oh whatever. I'm not saying that "all your prizes belongs to me" or > | anything. I'm just saying it could be better, perhaps, to motivate > | sales. Maybe its good enough where it is, maybe not. But I'm sure as > > No, really, this is just stupid. Average Dude doesn't play THAT many > tournaments and doesn't make the finals when he does anyway. He could > give a rat's ass about prize support; that's for Mr. Suitcase, not him, > and he knows it. what? Average dude joe shows up to local leagues if they've got prizes. I know cause I ask dudes questions like "you gonna' go play pirates this weekend?" "nah man... there aren't any prizes being handed out this week..." (maybe that happened BECAUSE there was prize support, but it kept me playing a bit... perhaps longer than I WOULD have normally played pirates...) > | hell NEVER going to be going to the NAC JUST because it has crappy > | prize support. Hell. The EC has better prize support, but its not even > | company provided, AFAIK. You get it? > > Yeah, I get that you're a frickin' whiner who expects something for nothing. Oh whatever. Wizkidsgames has decent prize support, WOtC gives out cash prizes and ball caps and stuff for their tournaments too. i suppose VTES gives occasional Tshirts (unlikely now that their WoD is unassociated with VTES... ar ethey really goign to print Nosferatu Tees anymore?) and has promos... but for a six hour long tournament... man. Poop on that crappy little prize support. There. That six hours. Is THAT nothing? > I think I hear the waaaambulance coming now. "Oh noes, I can't go to > the biggest gathering of the best players in North America and play in > the Championship because there's not enough priiiiize supporrttt... > waaaahhh... nevermind that I probably won't finish in a position to win > some ANYWAY, waaaahhhh." WAAAH!!! Its true. I might not place, and I can't afford to go. But if I could I probably wouldn't. The 'honor' of placing int he top of the nation doesn't seem a justifiable reward for the crap people go through to do so. SOMEthing special would be nice... Though I guess people did get asked to write strategy articles in VTES's new strategy guide... > |>Discontinuation of WoD 1.0 not relevant to V:TES, except that V:TES > | is > |>now the flagship and can drive the WoD, instead of events in the WoD > |>driving it (Gehenna). This is actually a GOOD thing for V:TES, and > | you > |>list it as bad? You desperately need some perspective on reality. > | > | I'm unsure in to whether its a good thing or bad thing. On the short > | term, its a good thing. Let people play VTM inspired CCG whilst they > | still remember VTM. But in a few years when we start forgetting and > | there are kiddies who like VTR and are maybe looking to suppliment > | their WW collection with something else... > > Then a few years from now, perhaps it will be appropriate. Right now, > V:TES should be enjoying the fact that it's not held hostage to events > in the WoD anymore, and forced to march in lockstep with them > (Abominations are probably not something the WoD would've brought back > to prominence, you know?) true. Might be more appropriate later. But why can't I talk about it now? > I wonder if a few years from now, we'll even have that many people > playing. 10 years is a long, long time for a CCG, and while you can try > to ride it forever, there's a time when it simply peters out. I don't > think that V:TES will die from anything internally, or any LACK of > something internally; I think pressures external to the game will simply > make it 2nd tier in most peoples' lives, and it'll eventually just.. you > know.. not be played. No fanfare, no incredibly broken stuff... just > tumbleweeds, eh? true that. > |>| rules for noobs). > |> > |>You mean the demo decks, which do exist, were printed, and work just > |>fine for teaching noobs? > | > | BAH! Have you tried teaching a pokemon kid to play VTES? Have you tried > | teaching joe booster pack how to play VTES? You know... the guy that > > A Pokemon kiddie doesn't want to play V:TES. The demo deck works great > in this instance; it shows the kid the game, he says "wow, that's too > fucking complicated", and takes his coin back to Pokemon and starts > flipping again. Who DOES want to play VTES? > | plays historical war games and Yu Gi Oh with his kid, and he asks about > | your game? You whip out the demo decks and proceed to explain the game. > > And you know as you start that he ain't gonna ever stick around, because > his kid already thinks it's boring and the guy himself probably isn't > even that good a Yu-Gi-Oh player -- so he's gonna get smeared in this. > Wargamers? Come on, man. It's one thing to try to sell the game, it's > another thing to correctly select your target audience. Ain't nothin' > gonna make that guy play. Demo to him, and judge from there whether the > light's shining in his eyes or not. You can tell pretty easily. yeah, and he expressed interest. Bought a starter and a booster (but we had an aweful selection of product for him, seeing as how a base set hasn't been printed in a LONG TIME). He played a bit, but, considering the crap he was getting in the boosters, and the complexity of the game, he quit showing up. YEHA! > | He buys a few product, but then, after two weeks of showing up, still > | hasn't understood the game yet, and keeps getting his ass handed to > | him, despite your best efforts in handing out cards and trying to teach > | him? Have you? > > Have I? Oh, yes, you betcha. The game isn't for everyone, and never > will be. I don't mind demoing to that Civil War recreationist dude > (well, I kind of do, because I know he ain't gonna be playin') -- but I > know better than to think there's any set of quick-start rules that's > gonna light up this guy's candle. maybe an appropriately designed base set might. > | Sure. Some people get this ccg. But others, the basic game mechanics > | are a stretch... > > And you'd spend more time and effort chasing the impossible dream? "DREAM THE IMPOSSIBLE DREAM!" :) > |>A true > |>designer discovers solutions appropriate to ALL facets of the > | problem, not just the obvious ones. > | > | Right... so what am I doing? Discussing the problems, discovering what > | people's opinions of the facets are, and trying to adress them. Jeesus. > > Already down the wrong path, and you even had it spelled out. > > People's opinions?? What does that matter? You think the average crowd > on the newsgroup is representative of how the game is played in cities > everywhere? You gotta be kidding me. well... ok. But maybe the newsgroup has some idea on what the average player is. Actually. of our entire play group, i'd say %50 ar active online. how's dem apples? > Discuss the problems endlessly all you want, but you need to lean in and > really THINK about what you're discussing. So far, all I really see > from you is unfocused ramble and complaints that "IT LACKS!". Well, no > shit. Nothing's perfect -- but damn, at least TRY a structured approach > to determine if there IS a problem, and then what exactly the problem is. Ok. maybe I need to define the problem more... and then talk about it.. oh wait... I DID THAT BEFORE I STARTED MY BASE SET THINGY! (though i didn't do what every one suggested I do. Give up. I shoulda' shrunk my goal to limiting a few disciplines and clans and incorporating those in an expansion that's draftable by itself too, but, alas, I tried and failed, but I learned from it. thats what you do in life, bud). ~SV

On 12 May 2005 06:31:40 -0700, "Screaming Vermillian" <vermil...@yahoo.com> wrote: >Fabio Sooner Macedo wrote: >> On 9 May 2005 14:14:13 -0700, "Screaming Vermillian" >> <vermil...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >Fabio Sooner Macedo wrote: >> >> On 9 May 2005 03:45:00 -0700, "Screaming Vermillian" >> >> <vermil...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> Why not? >> > >> >Oh, you LSJ apprentice you are! >> >> Some decisions are as good as others until someone points out why one >> is not feasible. In this regard, I'm with LSJ. > >So if it ain't broke, don't explain? Why should? To appeal to everyone's will? That is impossible.Sometimes you choose because you have to choose. >> It depends on what you're asking for. They drain blood and give a >> little bit of it back. >> But now it requires a "great force of will" to do it - i.e., spend a >> point of permanent Willpower. One could easily use this as an excuse >> to change the way "embrace cards" work. > >Yeah, but they make babies by expending some of their own blood. Same >thing in VTES (ok.. trophy progeny is a bit different) and VTM. Again until it goes through that barrier you're putting in this part of the discussion: pointing out similarities won't wipe of the fundamental differences. One still have to take account to the differences. Just ignoring them because you want to is no way to advance the idea. >> >Do they have disciplines? >> >Do they drink blood and use this blood to increase their attributes >and >> >fuel their disciplines? >> >> Of course yes. But that is not the point yet. Again, you're sticking >> to the similarities to cloud the perception of fundamental >> differences. >> And indeed these similarities are nothing more than a given in any >> vampires story. Vampires have powers, they consume blood. > >meh... it was never apparent to me that Anne rice vamps used their >blood for powers, just that their blood GRANTED them powers... Same >thing with Blade... That is implicit. If Blade or Anne Rice vampires don't expend blood to empower them (or something else), why do they keep drinking it? If it's just so that they remain vampires and their dead bodies do not crumble to dust, how come they don't explode in greasy bloody-red fat? Anyway, the concept of expeding blood is a given and a good explanation for that issue, and a great mechanic for an RPG based on vampires. The fact that it was maitained don't automatically make V:tR the same as V:tM. >> >Is blood Potency really THAT different from capacity that it >couldn't >> >just be incorporated with a simple linear function? >> >> Yes. > >Yeah, but you could be like "blood potency 1 makes 1-3 caps 2 makes 4-6 >3 makes 7-8 4 makes 9 5 makes 10 caps anything higher and you get >weirder vamps... or whatever. One could do what one wants. It does not make everything one does a good idea. >> >Really... what IS so different about VTR that screams "I can't >coexist >> >with VTM in a CCG setting!"? (well... other than WWs apparent >statement >> >that they would not do so, despite the fact that I don't remeber >them >> >saying this...) > >> It does not "screams" that it can't coexist with VtM. It is just >> different enough to cause more trouble than it's worth - that's all. > >Well, seeing as no one has really tried yet (that I know of) we'll see >when it happens. I am working on it currently, so I'll let you know >what kinda road blocks I hit... Not like I'm the best designer in the >world though or anything... >~SV See, I'm not one trying to make you give up on your idea. I'm just baffled by the assumption that the two games have that many similarities and that it won't ruin somewhat the feel for V:tES as it is now. To make a parallel, I do not think that Kindred of the East is feasible as a V:tES expansion, but I'd like to play with the Cathayans. So if you'd manage to try to design a fan set for it, you'd see me pointing out many things, but if you suceed, more power to you, I'd be the first to play it - just don't expect that I will suddenly think it's feasible without a good argument and a bunch of wonderful conversion ideas. And I don't see that many conversion ideas at all, much less good ones - just a bunch of "but they do drink blood also! why can't we mix? let us mix!" cries. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Yes, let us mix. :P No really. The furthest I've gotton with the whole mixing bit is finding out what titles VTR vamps have... pretty much there's just going to be one title. Prince. All VTR are independent, so an independet vampire with the title PRINCE isn't so bad for conversion principles. Its city dependent too... There will be other title/vote granting cards, political actions or other wise, however, that bestow the keyword priscus (not to be confused by the title priscus) bishop, etc... the orders in VTR will just be keywords also, maybe with abilities associated with them.... maybe not. (probably not). Many cards will be keyword associated to be able to play them. Bloodlines will be keyworded also, belonging to the actual CLAN of the parent clan... you know... clan gangrel, keyword bruja. But then there's that bit... Clan Gangrel VTR != Clan Gangrel VTES... or it could, it wouldn't hurt THAT badly... hell VTES gangrel are independent now anyhow... but anyhow. That's all I've done. granted I really haven't DONE anything yet. I just thought that crap up with a bit of a discussion with a friend online in like 30 minutes... anyhow... ~SV

FC wrote: > The RPG has provided inspiration to VTES - good as well as bad - > opinions on the expansions are hardly uniform. Personally I feel rather > relieved that VTES doesn't have to deal with more RPG stuff like Gehenna. right. Now VTES is free of the VTM bonds and can go do something else entirely (cyber vampires of the 24th century?) or something different, but simple (vampires giving up their vampireness and turning into something else... like soulfulll vampires ala angel from buffy the vampire slayer. Golconda if you will, but different...). ~SV

On 12 May 2005 11:36:51 -0700, "Screaming Vermillian" <vermil...@yahoo.com> wrote: >Yes, let us mix. :P So, if you want that so bad, let's try a quick brainstorm. >No really. The furthest I've gotton with the whole mixing bit is >finding out what titles VTR vamps have... pretty much there's just >going to be one title. Prince. All VTR are independent, so an >independet vampire with the title PRINCE isn't so bad for conversion >principles. Its city dependent too... Yeah, certainly. But there are equivalent titles. I can't remember all of the subtleties right now and don't have the book at hand (I'm at work), but I recall that there are a lot more titles in Requiem than there were in V:tM. The difference is that most of these titles are too specifics (Elysium Keeper, Sheriff, Hound and what's more) and each has at least two alternate names used in different regions. I'm sure that there is at least a title equivalent to Primogen. >There will be other title/vote granting cards, political actions or >other wise, however, that bestow the keyword priscus (not to be >confused by the title priscus) bishop, etc... That is the sort of thing that seems to be too confusing to bother with. >the orders in VTR will just be keywords also, maybe with abilities >associated with them.... maybe not. (probably not). You mean the Covenants? See, they're kind of sects anyway. They just don't have a worldwide hierarchy and such. It's the easier part to translate: John Doe comes with a "Carthian Movement: John Doe can do X during Y" special text. But bear in mind what impact to the game would be the sudden advent of FIVE new sects and the balance between previous cards and their appearence. PTO would get stronger because it has more targets (not in absolute numbers, but in possibilities of facing a non-Camarilla vampire around). The alternative is to add that as an attribute, like Scarce, Sterile and such. That could be done, and you could still deal with "Requires a Carthian vampire" on library cards, but it still seems strange because you're pairing sect/political/religious stance on the part of that vampire with individual attributes. In short, that vampire would not be able to "change sects", no matter how free to do so he is in the original scenario. I personally don't like it. And still, if done that way, which sect that vampire would be? Independent? How natural would be for a Invictus leader in Chicago to get PTO'ed by a Camarilla Justicar?... The third option is to just convert all Covenant alliances to the most similar old sect available. Lancea Sanctum would be Sabbat, Invictus would become Camarilla, the Carthians Anarchs and such. Though I can accept loosely connections, this road does not add to the fundamental question: why try do adapt V:tR to V:tES, when there are a lot of things to use from oWoD still? >Many cards will be keyword associated to be able to play them. >Bloodlines will be keyworded also, belonging to the actual CLAN of the >parent clan... you know... clan gangrel, keyword bruja. Fine, but how many attributes (if that's what you mean by keyword) would need to be added? >But then there's that bit... Clan Gangrel VTR != Clan Gangrel VTES... >or it could, it wouldn't hurt THAT badly... hell VTES gangrel are >independent now anyhow... Equivalency between clans that made it into the new game is not a problem. The most drastic change to the clans that remained is swapping a discipline for another, and one discipline added to the basics (Nightmare). Nothing in V:tES prevents adding new disciplines, so it's easy. What's not that easy is the advent of new clans. Though there's only two new ones, they are painfully similar to previous clans. Regarding only what would be of interest to V:tES design, the Mekhet is an amalgama of Malkavians and Assamites, and the Daeva share the exact same disciplines as the Brujah. Why release a new clan just to let it do the same thing other clans do? You'd also have to ignore the bloodlines that are too similar to old clans, be it by the name, or by the disciplines displayed. That would mean no Toreador bloodline, no Malkovians, no what's-the-name? (the one that has Vigor, Obtenebration and one more and shares something with the Lasombra), and maybe even no Bruja, no matter how different is their discipline set to the old Brujah. Just having too similar names can cause confusion. Designers don't want to cause confusion or people won't play the game. >but anyhow. That's all I've done. granted I really haven't DONE >anything yet. I just thought that crap up with a bit of a discussion >with a friend online in like 30 minutes... anyhow... >~SV So we wait. Add interesting tidbits or even a good reason to even think of doing that mix, and we have something to start on. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <d5sup3$o7j$1...@news.net.uni-c.dk>, FC <f...@kemi.dtu.dk> writes: >But it already has deviated from that starting point. Players can >influence some extremely potent named kindred (Augustus Giovanni for >generation, Ur-Shulgri for age, the Inner Circle for behind-the-scenes- >power - the IC were never named in the RPG afaik). >The thought of a Methusalah controlling such creatures is far fetched. >Indeed, these kindred are the ones the player was supposed to represent >in the beginning. Whilst the idea of influencing an antediluvian is somewhat more awkward, the idea of influencing Inner Circle members isn't terribly difficult. Being a Methuselah is not simply based on generation, and many older/lower generation vampires are still around in White Wolf canon, but still being manipulated by others in the grander scheme. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] I'll give you some good reasons... on the VTES + VTR ccg thread...

Screaming Vermillian wrote: > Fabio Sooner Macedo wrote: >>On 9 May 2005 14:14:13 -0700, "Screaming Vermillian" >>>Fabio Sooner Macedo wrote: >>>>On 9 May 2005 03:45:00 -0700, "Screaming Vermillian" >>>>Why not? >>> >>>Oh, you LSJ apprentice you are! >> >>Some decisions are as good as others until someone points out why one >>is not feasible. In this regard, I'm with LSJ. > > So if it ain't broke, don't explain? Actually, it's a rhetorical device to illustrate the shortcomings of the original question by way of parallel. To wit: Itchy: Why is the crypt minimum 12 instead of 13? Drone: Why should it not be 12? (that is, rather than taking on the tedious task of explaining why the original question isn't well-formed enough, the drone instead response with effort merely equal to the original effort.) -- LSJ (vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply) Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

LSJ wrote: > > Actually, it's a rhetorical device to illustrate the shortcomings of > the original question by way of parallel. > > To wit: > > Itchy: Why is the crypt minimum 12 instead of 13? > Drone: Why should it not be 12? > Okay, since I at least partly agree with the original poster (in so much as I think Pariah is almost unfairly penalized, but not necessarily that you need to or should explain the costing behind any given card to us), I'll rephrase... Pariah is a 6 cap with 6 points of disciplines (I don't think he has a particularly useful 6 points, since it seems like you could use him as either of 2 vampires that have 3 points - pre OBF or pot PRO, but a lot of vamps are like that, so we'll ignore it). So that part is balanced. In addition, he has: +1 hand damage built in rush Scarce no undirected actions does not untap normally >From looking at Beast, the built in rush plus no undirected actions seem to cancel out in cost(+1 pt, -1 pt). +1 hand damage is 1.5 pts, Scarce seems to be about -1 pt (although the True Brujah and Salubri that have it both have access to a very powerful unique clan discipline, which Abominations do not; also all of the BL scarce vamps have very nice, pretty unique special abilities), and the untap restriction seems like it's worth at least -1.5, maybe -2. So it would seem that Pariah is a 6 cap with (6 - 1 - 1 - 1.5 + 1.5 + 1) = only 5 points worth of stuff. Granted there's some fudging going on in there, but all-in-all, he seems a little weak and not really be "special" enough compared to the Scarce clans we got in BL. I know a lot of people feel the same way about Lorrie Dunsirn, and I also lump Allonzo in the same category. Even as a vampire with built-in rush, you look at him and then think, "there are better vampires to do this job", with better combat disciplines, fewer restrictions, etc.

Chris Berger wrote: > Pariah is a 6 cap with 6 points of disciplines... > In addition, he has: > > +1 hand damage > built in rush > > Scarce > no undirected actions > does not untap normally > > ...the built in rush plus no undirected actions > seem to cancel out in cost(+1 pt, -1 pt). +1 hand damage is 1.5 pts, > Scarce seems to be about -1 pt (although the True Brujah and Salubri > that have it both have access to a very powerful unique clan > discipline, which Abominations do not... Then again, the Abominations don't share many disciplines, have no clan cards, and are split among three groups. Scarce is scarcely a limitation for them because you're unlikely to want to include more than one Abomination in a crypt. > ...and the untap > restriction seems like it's worth at least -1.5, maybe -2. Given that it can be an advantage, and that you'd build your deck with his restriction in mind, it's worth more like -1. > ....he seems a little weak and not really be > "special" enough compared to the Scarce clans we got in BL. I know a > lot of people feel the same way about Lorrie Dunsirn, and I also lump > Allonzo in the same category. Even as a vampire with built-in rush, > you look at him and then think, "there are better vampires to do this > job", with better combat disciplines, fewer restrictions, etc. Who's the lowest capacity vampire that may enter combat with any minion as an action? (Shut yo mouth! I'm just talkin' about Pariah. We can dig it!) Pariah shares disciplines with Theo Bell, Beast, Wynn and Karsh. His special can be useful in combat decks, which are in trouble when they get choked with masters. What else would you give Pariah that wouldn't make him entirely too good? Geez, imagine him with POT or PRE.

"Emmit Svenson" <emmits...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1115938896.0...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... > Then again, the Abominations don't share many disciplines, have no clan > cards, and are split among three groups. Scarce is scarcely a > limitation for them because you're unlikely to want to include more > than one Abomination in a crypt. More to the point, I think, is that they're *like* something else which is not in their scarce clan. True Brujah, for instance, are most alike to other True Brujah so their scarcity is more of a penalty than, say, Allonzo who can be fairly easily played in a Followers of Set clan deck. Myself, I'd like to see Abomination clan cards issued (perhaps some slightly different but fairly basic common combat card on the order of Leathery Hide) just because I think it would be neat. For what that's worth. Fred

Chris Berger wrote: > LSJ wrote: >>Actually, it's a rhetorical device to illustrate the shortcomings of >>the original question by way of parallel. >> >>To wit: >> >>Itchy: Why is the crypt minimum 12 instead of 13? >>Drone: Why should it not be 12? > > Okay, since I at least partly agree with the original poster (in so > much as I think Pariah is almost unfairly penalized, but not > necessarily that you need to or should explain the costing behind any > given card to us), I'll rephrase... The original poster only asked about Pariah and leave torpor. The prohibition on leave torpor is worth about -0.001 points. :-) Why have it? is suitably met with Why not? That is, allowing him to be able to leave torpor (in addition to being able to be rescued, which he can be already) doesn't really affect the balance of him at all. And, given the self-loathing and perpetual Harano Abominations experience, is seems easily explained by / conforming to the backstory (at negligible impact to balance). > Pariah is a 6 cap with 6 points of disciplines (I don't think he has a > particularly useful 6 points, since it seems like you could use him as > either of 2 vampires that have 3 points - pre OBF or pot PRO, but a lot > of vamps are like that, so we'll ignore it). So that part is balanced. > In addition, he has: > > +1 hand damage > built in rush > > Scarce > no undirected actions > does not untap normally > >>From looking at Beast, the built in rush plus no undirected actions > seem to cancel out in cost(+1 pt, -1 pt). +1 hand damage is 1.5 pts, > Scarce seems to be about -1 pt (although the True Brujah and Salubri > that have it both have access to a very powerful unique clan > discipline, which Abominations do not; also all of the BL scarce vamps > have very nice, pretty unique special abilities), and the untap > restriction seems like it's worth at least -1.5, maybe -2. Beast was created under a different formula -- one in which he gets his cel for free, IIRC, but which only gives him 7 points for being 7 cap, which should make him "conform" to the current formula as well. So he pays about 3.5 points for rush with +1 strength and no agg disciplines (using a generous/conservative figure of -1.5 for no action cards/equipment/retainers). Scarce is worth nothing (other than access to special Disciplines on occasion, as you note). > So it would seem that Pariah is a 6 cap with (6 - 1 - 1 - 1.5 + 1.5 + > 1) = only 5 points worth of stuff. Granted there's some fudging going > on in there, but all-in-all, he seems a little weak and not really be > "special" enough compared to the Scarce clans we got in BL. I know a > lot of people feel the same way about Lorrie Dunsirn, and I also lump > Allonzo in the same category. Even as a vampire with built-in rush, > you look at him and then think, "there are better vampires to do this > job", with better combat disciplines, fewer restrictions, etc. Giving him the ability to leave torpor by himself wouldn't change the formula much in any event, but: 6 Disciplines + 3.5 rush with strength (not counting the extra synergy with claws) -2 master card - 1 undirecteds = 6.5 points, half a point high for a 6 cap (which you can allocate to his lack of meaningful "clan", perhaps). [ quoted text not captured ]

Frederick Scott wrote: > > More to the point, I think, is that they're *like* something else which > is not in their scarce clan. True Brujah, for instance, are most alike > to other True Brujah so their scarcity is more of a penalty than, say, > Allonzo who can be fairly easily played in a Followers of Set clan > deck. > But Allonzo is probably the best Abomination, and still doesn't fit that well with FoS, since he has no presence and can't play Corruption. You'd have to use him more in a deck that concentrates on Temptation and Form of Corruption, or in an Anarch deck with Reformation. And even those decks tend to have a decent vote sidebar, so his lack of presence can be a hindrance. Especially since the Settites have a notoriously bad spread of disciplines on low-cap vampires, which can lead to too many skill cards being needed. No 3 or 4 caps with a superior (Lasombra are the only other major clan with this problem), no 5 caps with 2 superiors, no 6 cap with 3 superiors, and only one 7 cap with 3 in-clan superiors (and unlike the 7 caps of many other clans, he doesn't have a title or a useful special).

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Screaming Vermillian wrote: | Derek Ray wrote: |>Screaming Vermillian wrote: |>| That's the sweet thing about the internet. Anything one says or | does |>| can be attributed to "haha! Its all jus a jokezor! LOLOL!" |> |>Yeah, we've noticed you believe that. | | and I've noticed that you use it too. No, 'fraid not. Let's clear this up: I'm accusing you of posting something in complete seriousness, and then when people get annoyed by it/say bad things to you/otherwise express disapproval, pretending that it was just a joke, when in fact you didn't originally mean it that way. I never do this. Ever. If you say I do, you're lying. I do frequently have myself a little joke; but the circumstances are invariably different (for one, almost everyone knows i'm joking when i say it the first time. A joke you have to remind people was a joke typically wasn't funny.) I stand behind what I say; you are quite the willow-tree waffle, quick to bend when you see the wind blow against you. |>Fortunately, you overuse it |>enough that we can kind of see through it by now. ...then again, | it's |>pretty transparent no matter what. | | Its transparent that I'm using it to cover up for my lack of reasonable | arguements? Your brevity is a cover up for your lack of reasonable | explanation to your refutations, most of the time, too. I'm near-legendary for writing posts the length of small best-sellers, and you say I use BREVITY as a cover-up? Come ON, man. =) As far as what you're covering up -- it's your intentions. You're way more serious about this stuff than you'd like everyone to believe, and I don't let you get away with it... probably one of the reasons I piss you off so much. Not sure why you care, honestly. |>What, exactly, did he have handed to him? A relatively well-designed |>base set with a few obvious flaws, and three expansions. | | In which there were extreme power inbalances with certain cards and key | concepts. Instead of trying to fix those straight off, or go with the | most recent decision by WotC to try to fix these inbalances (introduced | in sabbat) he goes and ruins it by throwing in everything that was | wrong with it in the first place! You're treating things as fact that are nothing but unfounded assumptions on your part, such as WotC's intent, and whether or not they believed the game was unbalanced. You can't do this and produce any meaningful conclusions. Also, you can't make statements like your last sentence without producing some actual examples and expect to be taken seriously; in this case, I mark most of this paragraph down to "OMG OMG OMG HE DIDNT NERF CONDITIONING", and thus, I can ignore it. Many of the power imbalances we see today were neither obvious nor present at the time he inherited the game; if you don't believe me, go look at the RGTCJ archives from 1998 or so, and have a good, hard look at the decks that were being posted then. Also look at what was winning - -- notice how vote and weenie was way, way, way at the top? Stealth bleed has always been strong, and always will be... but Legacy of Pander or weenie Computer Hack was almost a guaranteed trip to the finals. Now look at the content of Sabbat War carefully, and compare to the problems that existed then. Now look at Final Nights... See a pattern? |>By now, don't you figure that anything he was just dying to change on |>Day 1 has long since been done? | | And yet there were some things that perhaps he should have had on his | list of things to change that weren't there and so haven't been | accomplished. "OMG OMG OMG HE DIDN'T NERF CONDITIONING". Decisions were made that you didn't agree with. You wouldn't have done any better. |>"What he had handed to him" is really |>no longer relevant. | | Not anymore, no. There's little he can do about it now that he's | reprinted a bunch of cards. No. All there is now is back peddling and | trying to cover up for the games few (but major) design flaws and card | content mistakes. You believe that reprinting cards was a mistake? If so, why? What design flaws do you believe exist? Please provide support. What card content mistakes? Show your work. Any six-year-old can say "d00d htat sux0rz" -- I'm challenging you to grow a pair and prove something. Every other time someone comes right at you, you dodge, weave, and back away. You did so in the paragraph above; all that vague handwaving amounts to nothing more than six pounds of shit in a five-pound bucket. |>Yeah, there you go, that's some great logic there. "I don't really | know any of the facts, or the circumstances, or have any experience ... so |>I'm gonna start from "perhaps he's screwing it up" and go from | there." | | True. Others believe if it ain't broke don't fix it. I like bashing | some things up a bit and see if they're still alive after wards. Just a | paradigm difference between me and you. It's not a paradigm difference; it's plain old stupidity on your part. You don't "bash some things up and see what happens" in the real world. ~ This may look like just a game to you, and I bet it's all nice and easy to sit back in your comfy armchair and spout trash about "this was a bad decision". But to WW and everyone else whose income is related to the success of the game, any move needs to be backed by solid, worthwhile reasoning. WW ain't doing bad, but it's no Microsoft -- it doesn't have billions to throw around just to create a hunk of junk like "Bob". Never changing is bad for obvious reasons. But there's a right way to change, and a wrong way -- and the wrong way is to just change a bunch of stuff willy-nilly, screw with the foundations, and see if it works. Countless small businesses have folded because of such decisions; countless large businesses have been hit with huge losses because of it. ~ New Coke, anyone? How about Clear Beer? |>That'll get you far. | | And you'll rot in stasis. Oh, not at all. I just am not inclined to arbitrarily destroy something trying to "make it better" without any knowledge of what I'm doing. At least not since I was eight years old and taking apart my AM/FM radio. Again, your view indicates that you really don't have a good view of the big picture. |>You do realize that there's a huge difference between "trying to | figure |>out how to build a deck and how to properly leverage the imbalances |>inherent in the system" and "make it up from scratch"... right? | | sure, but I'm not making it up from scratch. I'm tweaking a previously | existing ccg. And yes, I've even tried to make CCGs up from scratch too | (with limited success). You have noticed that most of the expansions had a huge "from scratch" part included in them, right? Just checking. It ain't as simple as copying an existing card and creating that awful "press to continue (tha) steal 1, only at long (THA) as above but steal 2" card. Even the COPYING you didn't get right; the card is junk compared to Theft of Vitae. And you expect us to believe that you're competent to design even part of a new expansion, much less anything bigger? No way, man. What, do we have to get that Simon dude from American Idol in here to lecture you? |>Ooo, Mr. Generous. Don't hurt yourself there. | | It was a tough call. :) What would you rate it in the realm of ccgs? Or | do you not have enough ccg experience to adaquately rate it? Oh, I have plenty of that; this is the only CCG I've ever considered to be worth purchasing cards for. I've played a good number of them though, briefly -- about the only thing appealing in most of 'em is that they're quick and two-player, which means it's over fast and I can go play something fun, or have a beer, or whatever. I kind of liked NetRunner, but it had some obvious All the rest I've seen are FLAGRANT money-sinks, not to mention that the players are mostly juvenile imbeciles. You guys always make me just freakin' laugh when you bitch about "waaah, WW is trying to make money so they made "X" card rare" -- for god's sake, their tactics are downright POLITE compared to what I see other companies doing out there. ~ I mean, seriously. |>| I have the balls to think that VTR and VTES can combine. I have the |> |>No, that's the stupid. | | You're just stubborn. *snort* Whatever, kid. See other posts; see above. V:TR doesn't belong in V:TES; it's like the fanboy threads about "who would win a fight, Mr. Mxylpltk or Q"?? They're two different worlds for a REASON. I think you've been watching too much Jackass. Those guys think they have balls, too -- but in reality, they're just morons who THANKFULLY will likely kill themselves before they can breed. Hint: Doing dumb shit even when you know it's a bad idea isn't "balls"... it's just dumb shit. |>| balls to try to play without dom. I have the balls to create into a |> |>Irrelevant. | | Irrelevent to my balls content? OK, sure. But I think purposely playing | without certain strong card archetypes is a bit nutsy and ballsy (or | maybe just nuts. Whose nuts? Dese nuts.) Ain't very ballsy from my perspective. Lots of people play without Dominate. Lots of people win without it. (Jay Kristoff, how many DOM cards in that last deck you just won with? That's what I thought, thanks.) Your obsession with Dominate is part and parcel of your inability to see the actual state of affairs of the game. It's one of the best disciplines -- but it's neither the key to victory, nor is the lack thereof going to result in automatic failure. |>| parachute and glide from the heavens. I have the balls to try to | |>Moronic. | | Dude, those little japanese mammels ancestoral spirits do it all the | time... what are they called... shit. name escapes me. And you can't | tell me THEY'RE moronic, now can you? Sure I can. They're moronic too. | What if I'm really one of those things and you just didn't know it? Uh, whatever. Additional non-sequiturs from you in an attempt to avoid the issues will be ignored. |>...Without determining if there was a need for a draftable set, and |>instead submitting something that looked a lot more like an alternate |>base set... along with a number of imbalances. | | I spent time trying to goad people into helping me out. I REALLY wanted Oh yeah, THAT's the right way to do it. Badger people, ...that ALWAYS makes them helpful and want to collaborate on a bunch of thankless work that, even if it were perfect, would still be unlikely to see print. Negative marks for social engineering. | it to be a GROUP fan base set, but no one was feeling it... so after Wouldn't this lead you to believe that there was no need for such a thing? | like 3 months of prodding for any substantial assistance I went ahead | and did it myself. Granted it was less than perfect, but with another Which, ignoring the lack of need for a moment, you should've done before spending the 3 months prodding. Nobody is interested in signing up to do all the work for you -- this is why so many open-schwartz software projects fail miserably. Someone gets in there, designs a skeleton, and then hangs it out on SourceForge with a call for coders. A great deal of coders look at it and say "What the fuck, there's nothing there -- this guy just wants someone to write it for him" and move on. And if you look at the project 3 months later, the original guy has done almost no work himself, proving everyone correct. | attempt, a shift of design and some assitance I think the next version | could be much better. No, it couldn't. The whole thing is a solution in search of a problem. ~ I mean, seriously. Almost nobody helped you because almost nobody thought there was any need for a draftable set, and almost nobody thought there was a need to replace the Cam Edition base set. Honestly, man, if you do the research ahead of time and it says "nobody cares", why would you think "oh, they must care deep down inside, and I must only SHOW THEM THE WAY and they will follow me..." This is the kind of mentality stalkers are made of -- "they really do love me, they just are too shy to admit it!" No. Really, they just didn't give a shit. |>Don't make me laugh, boy. If you think I'm a yes-man, you've | obviously |>NEVER bothered to pay attention to anything I say, and instead focus | on |>the fact that I don't complain publicly. | | You seem to be full of complaints regarding PEOPLE... I prefer to call it "constructive criticism". Of the sharp and pointy variety. |>I typically choose to disagree |>in more productive forums | | What? What are the 'more productive forums'? Conclave? WW.com? In person? At tournaments? In playtest reports, when he's specifically ASKING for input? I'm hardly shy about pointing out things I don't like. Then again, I also try to provide a lot more support for my arguments when I do so. |>-- posting yet another gripe on USENET isn't |>the way to make changes happen, there's plenty of whining here | already. | | WAAAAAAAAA. Do YOU need the waambulence? You and Daneel are taking up too much room in the back already. |>Even here, you dodge and try to hide. Can't say it, huh? You | really, |>really want to, but you're scared that somehow, disagreeing with THE | MAN |>will mark you forever. | | what? I'm already 'marked forever'. Sure. I DISAGREE WITH 'THE MAN'! | Exciting. Done. See? More dodging and hand-waving. You got no balls. Come on, you can do it. Repeat after me: "LSJ, you don't know what you're doing, and while you've done some good things in the past, you're taking the game in directions that are ultimately going to be harmful. I got some ideas, and I think you need to listen up, because they're good ones." See, that isn't even the rude way to say it. But of course, you realize that once you say this, you gotta be able to hold that position... =) |>Or perhaps you realize that as soon as you say |>it, you don't have any ground to stand on and defend it? | | What? That there are things he shoulda' done differently? That I can do | the expansions better/differently? On the former, sure, I can defend | that. Its the latter that's more difficult and more time intensive than | the resources I have availble to prove. Any duffer can have eagle-eye hindsight. It's looking forward that seems to be beyond just about everyone. I don't want to hear any whining about "difficult" and "time intensive". ~ Either you can do it or you can't. Nobody is just going to hand it to you for free. How do you think I got as good as I am at pool? I'll tell you how -- I spent every night playing for at least 4 hours, for many, many years. It was difficult, and time-intensive, and I had to sacrifice other things because it was something I wanted. But even today, after not playing for a few years, I'm still one hell of a good player; better than 95% of everyone out there, easily. |>should drive to me. Guess what: you being unsatisfied doesn't matter | a |>damn bit, except to you. | | Well, enough of me-the-unsatisfied-with-VTESers creates a demand for WW | to potentially change the CCG and what not... not like that'll happen | (either). Another excellent example, thanks. Let's look at what you said: you don't think it'll happen because why? ...because there aren't enough people unsatisfied with the game to the degree you are. Now, is this a problem with V:TES, or is this a problem with Alex? Which of these do you think is more likely? Which of them is a safer assumption to make in the absence of any other information? |>Yeah, you actually do. And then you have to write it up worth a | damn, |>explain it decently, and provide at least ONE half-arsed solution to | the |>problem. | | Solution? Ok... but... what's the problem to which you refer? And what That is EXACTLY my point. You don't even know what you think the problem is when people corner you about it. Even if you HAVE thought it through, you sure don't look like you have. If you asked me what i thought the #1 problem was with the game, I could tell you in a heartbeat: It's Too Fucking Long. Everything else can be worked around or iterated through; if games lasted only an hour, we could run 5 preliminary rounds and high-risk, high-yield decks would become a viable archetype. I can keep going from there, but there isn't much point in doing so in this forum. | are you refering to 'write it up' properly? My disagreeance with LSJ, See above. What's the problem? You gotta define a problem before you start creating solutions -- otherwise it's sort of like masturbating with a brillo pad. It takes a long time, you put in a lot of effort, and it wasn't really worth it when you're done. | And what if I provide three 1/6-arsed solutions? Dodge, weave, dodge. Don't be nervous; step up to the plate. |>What if it was your second job, and your full-time job was something |>else entirely? Could you focus enough attention and effort on it | then? | | Ok, sure. I could focus some time on it. But it might take me a much | longer time and I might need some support from a superior or Then you aren't good enough to do LSJ's job. | something... like... oh HEY! THE INTERNET! Maybe SOME one online would | like to assist me in my endeavors? That's why I explain what I'd like | to do before I do it here usually, and try to get some feedback and | some support. Hey! Who know? See, the whole "COULD SOMEONE PLEASE HELP ME" thing really does no good at all in convincing us that you can hack it. I'm sure LSJ has people he speaks to while designing, he doesn't confine himself to a little corner of his house right behind the TV and write the whole thing up in the dark of night -- but you don't see him running around begging for help, do you? Nor did you see him doing so when he was given the reins. Why do you think that is? |>~ You'll need more than just experience playing CCGs, I can tell you | that. | | What other kind of experience do you suppose I'll need? People skills? You need those anyway. | Math background? Computer skills? Previous game design skills? If you had any of #3, those would help, but please, only count actually published games. And by publishing I'm not talking about "you Xeroxed it and handed it to your five friends." (any time now i'll get a letter from Xerox' lawyers saying "XEROX IS NOT A VERB".) | Marketing surverys? Those are typically junk before they ever leave the door on the outbound leg. By the time someone has filled them out, returned them, and counted them, you only know one thing: People have no fuckin' idea what they REALLY want, they just quote whatever problem they're having that day. | I'm curious what you think is needed. Lots of #3, and enough people skills to understand what "fun" is for the average person. |>Which is it? Better than LSJ, or not? If you think "different than |>LSJ" is what V:TES needs, then you're saying you could do it better. | | it might be what it needs. I think many of us here could probably do a No, really, which is it? | pretty good job at designing VTES expansions. I bet if they brought in | a guest designer every other expansion, we'd hardly be able to notice | the difference, really. I will take that bet. Final Nights. I win; pay up. Two guest designers were included on that expansion. There's a huge difference between FN and the rest of the expansions, if you look real closely -- a number of cards indicate that multiple views of "what direction to go now?" were involved during the creation process. ( Also, I am certain that almost NONE of us could do a "pretty good job" at designing V:TES expansions. And when I say "almost", it's only because I don't like absolutes in cases like this; I don't know anyone who could just jump in, whip off an expansion, and have it do well. Even making this statement indicates you aren't really aware of the depth of detail/attention necessary to create one. |>CCGs aren't much different. If you believe there's a problem... |> |>1. Identify the problem |>2. Fully define the problem (this is where most people fall down | horribly) |>3. Identify a possible solution |>4. Flesh out/implement the solution (this is where the rest of them |>fall down) in actual cards/rules. |> |>If it's tough for you to determine what V:TES needs... perhaps you |>should spend a lot more time playing and a lot more time analyzing, | and |>THEN decide what to create. | | I suppose I guess I just kinda' miss on one a bit sometimes, when I hit | it, I only partially define the problem, hit random, yet creative, | buttons for the solution, and then hit some more random creative shiney | buttons for solutions. And this is why your solutions look like crap when you're done. (Hi, nice to meet you, call me Simon.) "Random" doesn't equal creative. It equals random. The shotgun-blast approach to design often yields exactly what one might expect; a pretty blasted-looking design. | Hey. You've mentioned a problem with VTES in that bleed is too strong. | Do you have a solution? (making the other elements of the game | stronger, sure, is one solution. Now hit me with a number 4, buddy). Identify other resources that can be attacked, and link pool damage to those resources, either by (D) actions, in-play permanents such as Army of Rats/corruption counters, etc -- anything but bleed or vote. One obvious resource is locations; perhaps a card could exist something like: "Arsonist 1 life, 1 strength, 0 bleed. Unique Mortal. You may tap Arsonist when you burn a location controlled by another Methuselah to cause that location's controller to burn 2 pool. Arsonist may take a (D) action to burn a location controlled by any other Methuselah." Indirectly strengthens all the Rampage, etc. cards -- which in turn strengthens decks that do things other than bleed. It looks a bit weak from here at a second glance (2-minute design has its flaws), but it serves to illustrate the example nicely. | So how about this: | | Besides... my 'problem' ie. 'Why do vampires have the disciplines they | do'. doesn't really fit into your four step program very well. Perhaps it's not actually a problem. It looks like a question from here. If you can't define it narrowly, it seems likely that it's not actually a problem. | My VTR into VTES one does though. its actually a solution for the | problem "how do we keep new people coming into VTES" and "how can we | create more demand for VTR AND VTES products simultaneously" and | others. Neither of those are problems. Those are questions, and therefore meaningless in context. Do you believe that not enough new people are coming into V:TES? If so, why? Do you believe that there is a need to create demand for V:TR products? ~ For V:TES products? Is there a need for a single product that creates demand for both at once? Is the effort that would be spent on that product better spent creating two separate products of higher quality for each? See where I'm going? - -- Derek insert clever quotation here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32) iD8DBQFChDKjtQZlu3o7QpERAlQwAJ9XrfXazwCI25MgGw7whHWWgqO1WwCdHsO8 ud14suvEueB6iCKx3MNpDY0= =swfv -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Screaming Vermillian wrote: | |>| something... and really. How good WAS garfeild? Its like | Einstein... |>| not that smart, really. Just happened to think up something that | was |>| going to be created anyhow, but did it before anyone else. |> |>I choose not to respond to the obvious troll; you should do some |>research before you throw dumb statements like the above around. | | Hello! BS Math Physics! Right Here! I'm quite familiar with E's work, Obviously not, if you believe THAT pile of crap :) | and, like I was saying, and you'll find other physicists agree with me, Sweeping, trolling, false generalization :) | E's works would have been done by someone else, one or two years later, | at most, if he hadn't done it himself. And it's telling that nobody can name the "someone else" who would have. ~ *smirk* Look, go troll comp.sci.math with that crap if you must, OK? =) I'm sure rec.pets.cats is just itching for some more, too. |>But do you really get it? |> |>Here's one: What does the average CCG player want from a game? |>AVERAGE, I mean, not ridiculous obsessed card-monkey like so many of | us are. | | And that's what VTES doesn't have. Not the question. What does the average CCG player want? | I thin VTES is really onlt good for medium to high level card-monkeys. Again, not the question. | Low level card monkies don't dig this game, cause its not too playable | draftwise, nor can they just kick back adn throw a game or two of this Actually, draft seems to be one of the more popular events -- Josh Duffin was constantly running/playing in drafts at the RAM all through GenCon last year, and there always seem to be draft tourneys running at the major conventions, with a big pile of people in 'em. |>Ideas _are_ content. Which is it? | | Nonsense. Actual seriously created cards are content. Many of the card No. Cards are implementation of content. The content itself is the idea. | I've created are crap, but some of the ideas around them (cycling, | outferiours, keywords that assist drafting) are solid. Not really. Availability of more disciplineless cards simply bolsters weenies yet again. I didn't pay enough attention to the cycling or the keywords to comment on those; but the "disciplineless level" idea on so many cards was really, really bad. When you can get a discipline's effect for free, why spend the vampire points for the discipline? |>Good thing I typically explain why I'm telling you to grow up. | | What? When? Was it "Dude Grow Up!" your explanation, or was it why you Read the posts. | Your lashing out at people who are attempting to stir the game up and Yeah, because rabble-rousers bitching are SO KEWL, and that really improves the game to have them yapping about "THIS IS AN OUTRAGE, SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!!!11!!11eleven1!1" | improve it is some evidence that YOU need to grow up. And then you lash | out and whip out your WAAAAbluence concept on Daneel. Yeah. Real | mature. (But funny!) The waaaambulance has been around for a long time. It appears when appropriate. |>Accuracy is critical when you expect to be taken seriously. | | mistyped phrases need not apply (NO EDIT FUNCTION!) (READ POST BEFORE HIT SEND KTHXBYE!) |>|>font change: responsibility of art staff. Show evidence that it |>|>affected set sales? |>| |>| Sure. Fund me and give me some survey staff and I just might. |> |>Funny stuff. How many printings did Sabbat War sell out? |>How many did Dark Sovereigns, Ancient Hearts, and Sabbat sell out? | | how much was printed? What's the comparitive amount sold VS. other | ccgs? What percentage of VTES player stayed on and bought it, and what | percentage bought less? etc... Selling ANY printing of a set for a dead game out indicates that people are far more interested in playing the game than they are what the damn fonts look like. There were tons of typos in Sabbat War, and font kerning mismatches. But you didn't see THAT stopping people, did you? The only relevant question you have above, BTW, was the first. The rest are meaningless; if people buy all the product you print, either you didn't price the product high enough, or you didn't print enough. Either mistake is one most business owners would LOVE to make, compared to all the other mistakes that are made far more often. |>to the question we asked awhile ago: "What does the average CCG | player |>want from a game?" | | a decent quick playing ccg with rewardable play experience, not too What's decent? What's quick? What's rewardable? You can't use vague terms when you get down to this level. You gotta be specific. | random, with interaction between players, playable with just a limited What's too random? How much interaction? | card pool, and not too complicated. You do realize that "playable with a limited card pool" is directly counterproductive to "makes a profit", right? If the game don't sell cards, it does. You gotta give people a desire to buy cards, to always want more. What's too complicated? Again, specifics. | VTES fails on a few of these... Sure. But how? And what will you use as the criteria? It's easy to wander around waving your hands about how the sky is falling; it's a lot harder to come up and set a concrete goal to shoot for, and then design cards to move to that goal. |>Hint: "matching fonts between sets" doesn't rate in his top 10. | | Meh. It just ticks me off. ...not the average CCG player... |>| Oh whatever. I'm not saying that "all your prizes belongs to me" or |>| anything. I'm just saying it could be better, perhaps, to motivate |>| sales. Maybe its good enough where it is, maybe not. But I'm sure | |>No, really, this is just stupid. Average Dude doesn't play THAT many |>tournaments and doesn't make the finals when he does anyway. He | could give a rat's ass about prize support; that's for Mr. Suitcase, not | him, and he knows it. | | what? Average dude joe shows up to local leagues if they've got prizes. That's because local leagues hand stuff out every week for just showing up, and for playing in the league in the first place. I doubt any "average" players showed up hoping to win the big shiny crown at the end. | I know cause I ask dudes questions like "you gonna' go play pirates | this weekend?" "nah man... there aren't any prizes being handed out | this week..." (maybe that happened BECAUSE there was prize support, but | it kept me playing a bit... perhaps longer than I WOULD have normally | played pirates...) Those aren't average dude joes. Those are bottom-feeders. There's a difference. I have no interest in attracting the bottom-feeders to the game, because they'll spend their whole time looking to nickel and dime some more free swag, and very little time improving the fun experience of the game. |>| hell NEVER going to be going to the NAC JUST because it has crappy |>| prize support. Hell. The EC has better prize support, but its not | |>Yeah, I get that you're a frickin' whiner who expects something for | nothing. | | Oh whatever. Wizkidsgames has decent prize support, WOtC gives out cash | prizes and ball caps and stuff for their tournaments too. i suppose Waaaaahhhhhhh, I won't play because the prizes are crummy, wwwaaahhhh. | VTES gives occasional Tshirts (unlikely now that their WoD is | unassociated with VTES... ar ethey really goign to print Nosferatu Tees | anymore?) and has promos... but for a six hour long tournament... man. | Poop on that crappy little prize support. There. That six hours. Is | THAT nothing? Wwwaaaahhhhhhhhhh, the prizes are crummy, I want to get paid to play V:TES, waaaahhh, waaaahhhh, why can't i have stuff for free, waaaaahhhhh, waaaaaahhhhh. I want to pretend to improve the game but it's all a vehicle just so I can get a job I think I can laze around at instead of doing REAL work, waaaahhhh. |>I think I hear the waaaambulance coming now. "Oh noes, I can't go to |>the biggest gathering of the best players in North America and play | in the Championship because there's not enough priiiiize supporrttt... |>waaaahhh... nevermind that I probably won't finish in a position to | win some ANYWAY, waaaahhhh." | | WAAAH!!! Its true. I might not place, and I can't afford to go. But if Dude. Job. | I could I probably wouldn't. The 'honor' of placing int he top of the | nation doesn't seem a justifiable reward for the crap people go through | to do so. SOMEthing special would be nice... Wwaaaaahh, waaaaahhh, wwaaaaahhhh. It's no fun to meet people who play the game in person, it's no fun to play against new people with different stuff. Waaahhhh, waaaahhh... it's all just a bunch of crap, i'd hate it, waaahhhh... | Though I guess people did get asked to write strategy articles in | VTES's new strategy guide... Why do you think that was? It wasn't because they demanded "more prize support". It seems like WW is also not interested in attracting bottom-feeders, and instead would like to cater to the people who play and support the game. |>A Pokemon kiddie doesn't want to play V:TES. The demo deck works | great |>in this instance; it shows the kid the game, he says "wow, that's too |>fucking complicated", and takes his coin back to Pokemon and starts |>flipping again. | | Who DOES want to play VTES? That question deserves its own post. Suffice it to say: Enough. | yeah, and he expressed interest. Bought a starter and a booster (but we | had an aweful selection of product for him, seeing as how a base set What, you can't ask your store if they'll stock Cam Edition? Those are still available for purchase; it's an unlimited base set, you can get what you want. | hasn't been printed in a LONG TIME). He played a bit, but, considering | the crap he was getting in the boosters, and the complexity of the | game, he quit showing up. YEHA! He was gonna do that anyway, dude. He's a wargamer. He probably does that to lots of CCGs his kid plays. It ain't his thing. |>Have I? Oh, yes, you betcha. The game isn't for everyone, and never |>will be. I don't mind demoing to that Civil War recreationist dude |>(well, I kind of do, because I know he ain't gonna be playin') -- but | I know better than to think there's any set of quick-start rules that's |>gonna light up this guy's candle. | | maybe an appropriately designed base set might. What's wrong with the Camarilla Edition? Here you go again with the vague handwaving and whining; first you say there wasn't any base set available for him, then you say the boosters were crap -- did you ever consider telling him to buy two starter decks, mix 'em up, and THEN start buying boosters? You're already banging on a perceived "problem" that you haven't even concretely shown to BE a problem yet. Slow down, boy, you gonna hurt yourself. |>Already down the wrong path, and you even had it spelled out. |>People's opinions?? What does that matter? You think the average | crowd |>on the newsgroup is representative of how the game is played in | cities |>everywhere? You gotta be kidding me. | | well... ok. But maybe the newsgroup has some idea on what the average | player is. Two words: Un-fuckin' likely. | Actually. of our entire play group, i'd say %50 ar active online. how's | dem apples? Proves my point quite nicely. I won't even go into the more direct "how many read and post on this newsgroup" question. Please spare us the baseless assertions. | Ok. maybe I need to define the problem more... and then talk about it.. | oh wait... I DID THAT BEFORE I STARTED MY BASE SET THINGY! (though i And then you totally ignored what the response told you. | didn't do what every one suggested I do. Give up. I shoulda' shrunk my Didn't you think that this indicated there wasn't a problem or need for a base set? | goal to limiting a few disciplines and clans and incorporating those in | an expansion that's draftable by itself too, but, alas, I tried and | failed, but I learned from it. thats what you do in life, bud). Yeah, you learned SOMETHING, but it sure wasn't what you should have. - -- Derek insert clever quotation here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32) iD8DBQFChDpatQZlu3o7QpERAqBiAKCep+fSeMdwZH76I2muOKFO3mhuOQCdHy9o +ew0SBHQW7v8ZKgmEzai07M= =qDFt -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

In message <H8KdnfQeZ4k...@giganews.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> writes: >Never changing is bad for obvious reasons. But there's a right way to >change, and a wrong way -- and the wrong way is to just change a bunch >of stuff willy-nilly, screw with the foundations, and see if it works. >Countless small businesses have folded because of such decisions; >countless large businesses have been hit with huge losses because of >it. >~ New Coke, anyone? How about Clear Beer? Actually, as I recall, "new coke" had actually been significantly market tested. In blind taste tests, people preferred it. Which just goes to show that there's a LOT more to designing and refining things than how good it is. http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/newcoke.asp has a passing reference to the taste tests in it: After a year of fiddling with the flavor balances, New Coke was finally as good as the company could make it. It tasted smoother and sweeter than original Coke, more like Pepsi. Sounds like a good idea so far, eh? Well, it sounded like an even better one when the results came in from a battery of taste tests utilizing the new formula. People said they liked the new Coke better than Coca-Cola or Pepsi, and by a significant factor, too. Taste for taste, it was a winner. [ quoted text not captured ]

Emmit Svenson a écrit : >>...and the untap >>restriction seems like it's worth at least -1.5, maybe -2. > > > Given that it can be an advantage, and that you'd build your deck with > his restriction in mind, it's worth more like -1. Come on ! you know it is definitely *NOT* an advantage There are moments you won't have the masters in hand, and some other where Pariah is not on the table and your hand will clump in green cards... I can just say : "i'm happy that Rex pays his combat card more because other people will hate it when they graverob him from me" :/ (...) > Pariah shares disciplines with Theo Bell, Beast, Wynn and Karsh. His > special can be useful in combat decks, which are in trouble when they > get choked with masters. Sorry, but i personnaly would never put him in a theo or beast deck since they share only one and half discipline :) > What else would you give Pariah that wouldn't make him entirely too > good? Geez, imagine him with POT or PRE. a good clan card ? just for the record, i had my game hampered when another player put alonzo (another abomination) on the table just one turn before i had Pariah out. When you play pariah, don't forget you may well pay 9 instead of 6 pool to have him out. :(

Chris Berger a écrit : > Frederick Scott wrote: > >>More to the point, I think, is that they're *like* something else > > which > >>is not in their scarce clan. True Brujah, for instance, are most > > alike > >>to other True Brujah so their scarcity is more of a penalty than, > > say, > >>Allonzo who can be fairly easily played in a Followers of Set clan >>deck. >> > > But Allonzo is probably the best Abomination, and still doesn't fit > that well with FoS, since he has no presence and can't play Corruption. ?? who plays corruption ? Use him to tempt, entice, and all those pesky serpentis actions. Free stealth to begin, superior obfuscate to back that up. Faceless night, eleder impersonation... It's the guy nobody wants to block ! Allonzo was superbly designed...

On Fri, 13 May 2005 03:00:32 GMT, LSJ <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote: >> Okay, since I at least partly agree with the original poster (in so >> much as I think Pariah is almost unfairly penalized, but not >> necessarily that you need to or should explain the costing behind any >> given card to us), I'll rephrase... > > The original poster only asked about Pariah and leave torpor. > The prohibition on leave torpor is worth about -0.001 points. :-) > > Why have it? > > is suitably met with > > Why not? This may seem cynical to some readers (regardless of validity). > That is, allowing him to be able to leave torpor (in addition to > being able to be rescued, which he can be already) doesn't really > affect the balance of him at all. > > And, given the self-loathing and perpetual Harano Abominations > experience, is seems easily explained by / conforming to the > backstory (at negligible impact to balance). For what it's worth, I think Pariah is well designed. -- Bye, Daneel

LSJ wrote: > > Scarce is worth nothing (other than access to special Disciplines > on occasion, as you note). > Well, I supposed that's what I didn't understand. Sterile, certainly, I understand as being not worth anything. Blood Cursed, Cold Iron Vulnerable, sure, are 0 pt disads. But Scarce means that sometimes you'll be paying 3 extra pool for your vampire (and sometimes you will be stuck with him unless you're willing to pay 6 extra pool). I never would have imaginged that it's considered to be 0 points. > > 6 Disciplines + 3.5 rush with strength (not counting the extra synergy with > claws) -2 master card - 1 undirecteds = 6.5 points, half a point high for a 6 > cap (which you can allocate to his lack of meaningful "clan", perhaps). > Again, I suppose counting Scarce as 0 points definitely changes my formula. If you considered Scarce as -1 pt, then you com up as a 5.5, only half a point low, but considering his lack of a meaningful clan, that puts him in rough shape. I guess maybe the other Scarce vamps were costed with it at 0 points, but they made up for that with intangibles. On the other hand, Pariah has protean, so that's another intangible when combined with his rush and strength. I guess I just hate the untap disadvantage a lot, and feel quite restricted when it comes to Scarce vamps, on top of which, I would only feel comfortable playing him in something like an Anson deck, which his disciplines and focus are ill-suited to. At least he has minor presence. Of course, I still don't think he's the *worst* Abomination. Lorrie Dunsirn has some serious problems to work around. ;) On the other hand, I could easily see them all being made a good deal better by something as simple as an Abomination clan card or two.

Derek Ray wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > And it's telling that nobody can name the "someone else" who would have. > ~ *smirk* Oddly enough I recall asking that same question to my professor when I first heard about this topic... He sputtered a bit, and said he'd get back to me. One year later, I ask him again, and he actually gives me a name, citing that he had looked up some information, but had forgotton to get back to me. Thinking he was obviously just giving me a name to deflect my question, I ignored it for a month or so, but later looked some cra up about the guy and found some others agreed. Of course this guy is nameless, cause my memory is shit from 4 years ago... > |>But do you really get it? > |> > |>Here's one: What does the average CCG player want from a game? > |>AVERAGE, I mean, not ridiculous obsessed card-monkey like so many of > | us are. > | > | And that's what VTES doesn't have. > > Not the question. What does the average CCG player want? Dude, you just snipped my topic of what they want, didn't you? > | Low level card monkies don't dig this game, cause its not too playable > | draftwise, nor can they just kick back adn throw a game or two of this > > Actually, draft seems to be one of the more popular events EVENTS. Like at a CON? Yeah. There you go, ignoring your own restraints. Lets stick to average Joe Booster pack here. > -- Josh > Duffin was constantly running/playing in drafts at the RAM all through > GenCon last year, and there always seem to be draft tourneys running at > the major conventions, with a big pile of people in 'em. How often does Josh draft at home? Once a season? Its unlikely that it gets more than that in frequency due to time contraints. > |>Ideas _are_ content. Which is it? > | > | Nonsense. Actual seriously created cards are content. Many of the card > > No. Cards are implementation of content. The content itself is the idea. So there's no seperation of the two then? Ok then. Well, some of my content is good then (say... crypt cards as library cards). My implimentation is poor (well, didn't really impliment that last one publicly...). Who cares, its just a matter of how you define it. > | I've created are crap, but some of the ideas around them (cycling, > | outferiours, keywords that assist drafting) are solid. > > Not really. Availability of more disciplineless cards simply bolsters > weenies yet again. I didn't pay enough attention to the cycling or the > keywords to comment on those; but the "disciplineless level" idea on so > many cards was really, really bad. When you can get a discipline's > effect for free, why spend the vampire points for the discipline? Meh. They usually required a VAMPIRE of some certain CAPACITY in most incarnations. So no. It doesn't really help weenies. > |>Good thing I typically explain why I'm telling you to grow up. > | > | What? When? Was it "Dude Grow Up!" your explanation, or was it why you > > Read the posts. Nah... its SO TOUGH to follow back a few threads and so time consuming with a dial up modem. :p > | Your lashing out at people who are attempting to stir the game up and > > Yeah, because rabble-rousers bitching are SO KEWL, and that really > improves the game to have them yapping about "THIS IS AN OUTRAGE, > SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!!!11!!11eleven1!1" Meh, I do that and then in another post or in the same one I say "ok, maybe if we do something with THIS. Any thoughts?". See. Its not just pure babble. > |>to the question we asked awhile ago: "What does the average CCG > | player > |>want from a game?" > | > | a decent quick playing ccg with rewardable play experience, not too > > What's decent? a useless adjective. > What's quick? played under an hour. > What's rewardable? Perhaps further explanation of 'decent' 'quick' and 'rewarding' are needed. Where you deck construction and gaming skillz are directly proportional with a high coefficient of proportionality to the success of your game. Where other random elements are present but whose game crippling magnitude is inversely proportional to the duration of the game. For a good game I cite DuleMaster (which shot itself in the foot with attempting to compete in the same market as Yu-Gi-Oh and not making enough of a public attempt to more appropriately define itself as a humourous spin off of similar Monster Fighting CCGs, similar to unhinged (but wiht solid play mechanics)) > You can't use vague terms when you get down to this level. You gotta be > specific. Can you please define vague for me? What do you mean by level? Could you be more specific about specific? > | random, with interaction between players, playable with just a limited > > What's too random? Where there is a random element that you can not control introduced into the game. (seating!) > How much interaction? Enough so that I'm not just 'playing my own game'. Like AGOT. Or Sim City the ccg... See, its kinda' tough to define these things, but I can easily cite other ccgs that have these properties... however, being more specific is rewarding, because then one can work out the bugs specifically, where as trying to find out why SIm City the CCG failed in my interaction catagory or satisfaction and then trying to fix hat and then imliment it in another ccg is probably too complicated. Some assistance perhaps? > | card pool, and not too complicated. > > You do realize that "playable with a limited card pool" is directly > counterproductive to "makes a profit", right? Playable. Not competetive. Playable. > If the game don't sell > cards, it does. You gotta give people a desire to buy cards, to always > want more. > > What's too complicated? How many pages of rules do we have? > Again, specifics. You mom. > | VTES fails on a few of these... > > Sure. But how? And what will you use as the criteria? It's easy to > wander around waving your hands about how the sky is falling; it's a lot > harder to come up and set a concrete goal to shoot for, and then design > cards to move to that goal. > > |>Hint: "matching fonts between sets" doesn't rate in his top 10. > | > | Meh. It just ticks me off. > > ...not the average CCG player... you're not the average ccg payer either. So how do YOU know what does ot does not tick off Joe Booster Pack? > |>No, really, this is just stupid. Average Dude doesn't play THAT many > |>tournaments and doesn't make the finals when he does anyway. He > | could give a rat's ass about prize support; that's for Mr. Suitcase, not > | him, and he knows it. > | > | what? Average dude joe shows up to local leagues if they've got prizes. > > That's because local leagues hand stuff out every week for just showing > up, and for playing in the league in the first place. I doubt any > "average" players showed up hoping to win the big shiny crown at the end. No they do. They'd LIKE to be able to. So some show up in hopes that they'll get lucky, you know? > | I know cause I ask dudes questions like "you gonna' go play pirates > | this weekend?" "nah man... there aren't any prizes being handed out > | this week..." (maybe that happened BECAUSE there was prize support, but > | it kept me playing a bit... perhaps longer than I WOULD have normally > | played pirates...) > > Those aren't average dude joes. Those are bottom-feeders. There's a > difference. I have no interest in attracting the bottom-feeders to the > game, because they'll spend their whole time looking to nickel and dime > some more free swag, and very little time improving the fun experience > of the game. true that. I'm somewhere between a bottom feeder (I do love my swag!) and a super ccg monkey head (no need to explin that...). Does that make me an average ccger? Or something far more perverse? > |>Yeah, I get that you're a frickin' whiner who expects something for > | nothing. > | > | Oh whatever. Wizkidsgames has decent prize support, WOtC gives out cash > | prizes and ball caps and stuff for their tournaments too. i suppose > > Waaaaahhhhhhh, I won't play because the prizes are crummy, wwwaaahhhh. > > | VTES gives occasional Tshirts (unlikely now that their WoD is > | unassociated with VTES... ar ethey really goign to print Nosferatu Tees > | anymore?) and has promos... but for a six hour long tournament... man. > | Poop on that crappy little prize support. There. That six hours. Is > | THAT nothing? > > Wwwaaaahhhhhhhhhh, the prizes are crummy, I want to get paid to play > V:TES, waaaahhh, waaaahhhh, why can't i have stuff for free, > waaaaahhhhh, waaaaaahhhhh. I want to pretend to improve the game but > it's all a vehicle just so I can get a job I think I can laze around at > instead of doing REAL work, waaaahhhh. WTF. No. I don't really want LSJs job (well really I don't know. I'm one of those "ok I'll try it out for 3 months" kinda' guy when it comes to employment. Shhh. Don't tell any future employers!"). I thought my near complete bashing of his game made that clear! Though its true I'd love a job where I can laze around and do nothing... on in which I enjoyed the work I did, would probably be better however. > |>I think I hear the waaaambulance coming now. "Oh noes, I can't go to > |>the biggest gathering of the best players in North America and play > | in the Championship because there's not enough priiiiize supporrttt... > |>waaaahhh... nevermind that I probably won't finish in a position to > | win some ANYWAY, waaaahhhh." > | > | WAAAH!!! Its true. I might not place, and I can't afford to go. But if > > Dude. Job. Yeah, and then that interferes. College != good paying job, btw. > | I could I probably wouldn't. The 'honor' of placing int he top of the > | nation doesn't seem a justifiable reward for the crap people go through > | to do so. SOMEthing special would be nice... > > Wwaaaaahh, waaaaahhh, wwaaaaahhhh. It's no fun to meet people who play > the game in person, it's no fun to play against new people with > different stuff. Waaahhhh, waaaahhh... it's all just a bunch of crap, > i'd hate it, waaahhhh... no, I like playing new people. I just don't like traveling 4 hours to go do so, for something that doesn't even have an official top dog prize. That's all. If you'd turn your waaabulence down a second, you'd understand that. > | Though I guess people did get asked to write strategy articles in > | VTES's new strategy guide... > > Why do you think that was? > > It wasn't because they demanded "more prize support". It seems like WW > is also not interested in attracting bottom-feeders, and instead would > like to cater to the people who play and support the game. Ok. I'm glad they're interested in that. Makes sense. People who like our game, we'll support them. But they've alreayd got these guys for life, pretty much. They can aim for some other targets once in a while too... > | Who DOES want to play VTES? > > That question deserves its own post. Suffice it to say: Enough. True. Perhaps weshould explore that else where. > | yeah, and he expressed interest. Bought a starter and a booster (but we > | had an aweful selection of product for him, seeing as how a base set > > What, you can't ask your store if they'll stock Cam Edition? Those are > still available for purchase; it's an unlimited base set, you can get > what you want. No yeah, I did. And they were like "yeah... VTES only sells only half ok... we'vegot four boxes of it out there, and like, four back in the back... maybe when one or two sell out, we can buy some cam". Of course they also commented "isn't sabbat war a base set?" and the guys purchase of the !tremere starter seems to explain that (though the store cleark didn't understand of course). > |>Have I? Oh, yes, you betcha. The game isn't for everyone, and never > |>will be. I don't mind demoing to that Civil War recreationist dude > |>(well, I kind of do, because I know he ain't gonna be playin') -- but > | I know better than to think there's any set of quick-start rules that's > |>gonna light up this guy's candle. > | > | maybe an appropriately designed base set might. > > What's wrong with the Camarilla Edition? group 3 vampires. No new library cards. We're going to need a new group soon... > Here you go again with the > vague handwaving and whining; first you say there wasn't any base set > available for him, then you say the boosters were crap -- did you ever > consider telling him to buy two starter decks, mix 'em up, and THEN > start buying boosters? yeha, but he wanted new cards, not the same cards twice (or times sixor whatever). I understand his pain in this point. > You're already banging on a perceived "problem" that you haven't even > concretely shown to BE a problem yet. Slow down, boy, you gonna hurt > yourself. Ouchy. Maybe if you didn't keep hitting me on the head with that mallet there... Problem: Noob wants into the game. He buys a random precon. Now he wants to know what booster to purchase to support his precon. ANSWER: depends on the precon he bought WHat SHOULD the answer be? BASE SET. Nuff said? > | well... ok. But maybe the newsgroup has some idea on what the average > | player is. > > Two words: Un-fuckin' likely. don't we play with them? Whats YOUR idea of average joe booster pack? > | Actually. of our entire play group, i'd say %50 ar active online. how's > | dem apples? > > Proves my point quite nicely. > > I won't even go into the more direct "how many read and post on this > newsgroup" question. Please spare us the baseless assertions. around 6 have read and do read on a regukar basis I think... I could be high... > | Ok. maybe I need to define the problem more... and then talk about it.. > | oh wait... I DID THAT BEFORE I STARTED MY BASE SET THINGY! (though i > > And then you totally ignored what the response told you. that I just shouldn't do it at all. The reasons they cited weren't sufficient explanation of why it would be a bad idea, so I went ahead and did it. I suppose that's not everyone on the internets fault, no. But the discussion I generated was all mostly "no it sucks" or "they should be reprints" and what not, and I was stuck in my ways and really wantedto make 400 new cards. Silly me but I did it and I learned. But back to this: the pre-crafting discussion could have been a bit more productive. Even clan newsletter editors weren't very interested in helping! > | didn't do what every one suggested I do. Give up. I shoulda' shrunk my > > Didn't you think that this indicated there wasn't a problem or need for > a base set? Just because people don't say they need it, doesn't mean its needed, or can be useful. > | goal to limiting a few disciplines and clans and incorporating those in > | an expansion that's draftable by itself too, but, alas, I tried and > | failed, but I learned from it. thats what you do in life, bud). > > Yeah, you learned SOMETHING, but it sure wasn't what you should have. ... Wait. Was wha I was supposed to learn "grow up"? I think I've hearrd that one before. ~SV

Chris Berger wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > > > Scarce is worth nothing (other than access to special Disciplines > > on occasion, as you note). > > > Well, I supposed that's what I didn't understand. Sterile, certainly, > I understand as being not worth anything. Blood Cursed, Cold Iron > Vulnerable, sure, are 0 pt disads. But Scarce means that sometimes > you'll be paying 3 extra pool for your vampire (and sometimes you will > be stuck with him unless you're willing to pay 6 extra pool). 6? Not Pariah, in general, due to the grouping rule (and his lack of overlap with his compatriots typically avoids the 3 as well, to boot). Unless you're seeing an Abomination-heavy meta :-). It's worth nothing to the others, in general, because it's just a crypt restriction, basically, that you may choose to pay three pool to ignore.

Chris Berger wrote: > ...Scarce means that sometimes > you'll be paying 3 extra pool for your vampire (and sometimes you will > be stuck with him unless you're willing to pay 6 extra pool). I never > would have imaginged that it's considered to be 0 points. People will end up paying 3+ extra for an Abomination less often than they will end up contesting Arika. At least once KMW madness dies down. Scarce could be a hinderance--someone might Banish your Abomination, then Clan Impersonate to Abomination to twist the knife--but it's like Blythe's little Malkavian problem: not a substantial concern when choosing a crypt. > Of course, I still don't think he's the *worst* Abomination. Lorrie > Dunsirn has some serious problems to work around. ;) She was a gamewinner for me in the KMW draft, a deadly addition to the Alastor deck.

Emmit Svenson wrote: > > People will end up paying 3+ extra for an Abomination less often than > they will end up contesting Arika. At least once KMW madness dies down. > The only reason for that would be if the Abominations are subpar vampires (which I think they are, but most of the posts in this thread have said otherwise). If they were good vampires, there would be no reason to think that the chances of having to pay +3 for Pariah are any worse than the chances of seeing Settites plus the chances of seeing Giovanni at any given table. And I don't know about nation-wide meta, but that seems like you see one of those clans at least once every 3rd game, possibly once every 2 games. Not to mention the (albeit slight) possibility of someone playing a deck that is specifically built around one of the other Aboms, without it being a Gio/FoS deck that just happens to throw in Allonzo or Lorrie.

Chris Berger wrote: > If they were good vampires, there would be no reason to think that the > chances of having to pay +3 for Pariah are any worse than the chances > of seeing Settites plus the chances of seeing Giovanni at any given > table. And I don't know about nation-wide meta, but that seems like > you see one of those clans at least once every 3rd game, possibly once > every 2 games. Not to mention the (albeit slight) possibility of > someone playing a deck that is specifically built around one of the > other Aboms, without it being a Gio/FoS deck that just happens to throw > in Allonzo or Lorrie. The chances of seeing one of those two vampires come out before you can bring yours out (would be) = the chances of seeing any Setites and/or any Giovanni (i.e., one of 70 vampires, one of whom is not unique) come out? That doesn't seem reasonable. Even good/great vampires don't find their way into every deck that has a tangental relationship in numbers that mean they'll come out first.

"Screaming Vermillian" <vermil...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1115735764....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > How good WAS garfeild? Its like Einstein... > not that smart, really. Just happened to think up something that was > going to be created anyhow, but did it before anyone else. Hmmmm. THAT'S a very interesting suggestion. I assume you refer to Einstein's 1905 discoveries. Which l'il thing are we talking about here that you feel might have been created otherwise a bit later? The one that formed the basis for quantum mechanics? The special theory of relativity which resolved the conumdrum posed by the Michelson-Morley experiments that had plaqued science for previous 18 years? Or his observations about the relationship between Brownian motion and atomic theory, essentially confirming the latter? Of course, it's said of science and technology that everyone who invents stands on the shoulders of giants - that all inventions and discoveries owe a debt of gratitude to those who invented and discovered before them. Given enough time, mankind would certainly have discovered all of these things sooner or later. But under the circumstances, I don't think you're going to find much agreement with your notion that Einstein was, "not that smart, really". As for Garfield, I guess I've never been that impressed with him as a genius. After creating the idea for the CCG, I've never heard him say anything or seen him do anything that makes me think this guy just sees stuff that normal people don't. Even the CCG seems to me just a lucky outgrowth of pursuing a gaming paradigm that many other people might have thought of. Still, you have to give credit where it's due. It's one thing to imagine something like, "Let's print a limited number of game pieces and make people jump through hoops to obtain them and use them in games." It's quite another thing to have enough confidence in your idea to get off your ass and make it happen so that you _can_ discover that its appeal is far more universal than anyone could have imagined. Sometimes the genius is not so much in thinking up the idea but in seeing that it has merit and should have a chance at life. Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > "Screaming Vermillian" <vermil...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1115735764....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > How good WAS garfeild? Its like Einstein... > > not that smart, really. Just happened to think up something that was > > going to be created anyhow, but did it before anyone else. > > Hmmmm. THAT'S a very interesting suggestion. I assume you refer > to Einstein's 1905 discoveries. Which l'il thing are we talking > about here that you feel might have been created otherwise a > bit later? The one that formed the basis for quantum > mechanics? The special theory of relativity which resolved the > conumdrum posed by the Michelson-Morley experiments that had > plaqued science for previous 18 years? Or his observations about > the relationship between Brownian motion and atomic theory, > essentially confirming the latter? All three. I suppose the fact that they were all 'discovered' by the same guy leads us to opt him some respect, which I do. Just don't herald him as some kind of God of Physics or anything, as the news did a few weeks ago... (at least in the US on NPR...). > Of course, it's said of science and technology that everyone who > invents stands on the shoulders of giants - that all inventions > and discoveries owe a debt of gratitude to those who invented and > discovered before them. Given enough time, mankind would > certainly have discovered all of these things sooner or later. > But under the circumstances, I don't think you're going to find > much agreement with your notion that Einstein was, "not that > smart, really". My apologies for claiming that he wasn't smart. He was smart. Just, not well... yeah. My comment was really just trying to stress that you can't claim RCG is some kind of Einstein of CCGs, and then I got excited about ripping on Einstein's accomplishments too, cause I had residual frustration about it from the previous week or Einstein idolitry... > As for Garfield, I guess I've never been that impressed with him > as a genius. Yeah, but he's pretty much the only CCGod-head we have right now... Well other than LSJ of course. > Sometimes the genius is not so much in thinking up the idea but > in seeing that it has merit and should have a chance at life. well and then acting on it yes... I have so many ideas, but so little time and resources and... well, probably balls, to seriously act on them. Guess that seperates geniouses and moderate pooheads like me. ~SV

On Fri, 13 May 2005 11:24:37 GMT, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: >For what it's worth, I think Pariah is well designed. Me too. I like challenges. Pariah is a challenge, as Sonja Blue is. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <428479aa$0$7289$79c1...@nan-newsreader-05.noos.net>, reyda <true_...@hotmail.com> writes: >just for the record, i had my game hampered when another player put >alonzo (another abomination) on the table just one turn before i had >Pariah out. When you play pariah, don't forget you may well pay 9 >instead of 6 pool to have him out. :( However, similar issues abound with any popular vampires - or vampires who happen to have popular titles, or the title of a vampire who happens to be popular. But you have a crypt of twelve vampires and 4 in your initial uncontrolled region and the ability to get more if you need them. Yes, if you play a deck that's focused heavily around a single vampire, someone else playing something that affects you heavily is going to cause you problems - be it contesting Arika, contesting a title with you, having a particularly troublesome special ability that wouldn't normally affect anyone or, in this case, the Scarce penalty. If someone gets Leandro out quickly, you may well have to pay several pool more for some of your vampires, for instance. However, these are the choices you make when designing decks. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe a écrit : > But you have a crypt of twelve vampires and 4 in your > initial uncontrolled region and the ability to get more if you need > them. I wish to thank you for all the clever clues you give to me. no doubt i'll enjoy this game a lot more than before now i know i can use more vampires. =) (...) > If someone gets Leandro out quickly, you may well have to pay several > pool more for some of your vampires, for instance. > > However, these are the choices you make when designing decks. When i design a deck, well, i don't take it for granted that leandro will be on the table. Do you ?

On 13 May 2005 14:08:20 -0700, Screaming Vermillian <vermil...@yahoo.com> wrote: > All three. I suppose the fact that they were all 'discovered' by the > same guy leads us to opt him some respect, which I do. Just don't > herald him as some kind of God of Physics or anything, as the news did > a few weeks ago... (at least in the US on NPR...). Truth is, you don't have to be a genius to be a genius. ;) -- Bye, Daneel

In message <42852095$0$8078$79c1...@nan-newsreader-05.noos.net>, reyda <true_...@hotmail.com> writes: >James Coupe a écrit : >> But you have a crypt of twelve vampires and 4 in your >> initial uncontrolled region and the ability to get more if you need >> them. > >I wish to thank you for all the clever clues you give to me. >no doubt i'll enjoy this game a lot more than before now i know i can >use more vampires. =) *sigh* The point is that if you get screwed over because you're focusing around one vampire and someone else happens to bring out someone who's going to cause you bother, that's your decision. It's always a problem for a mono-vampire deck. A deck with varied vampires in it suffers much less from this but pays for it in other ways (lack of exactly the right disciplines, perhaps), glib comments aside. If you're hoping to play Arika and someone else brings her out, you bring one of your other vampires out instead OR accept the fact that you'll have to pay for the contest. Same deal with scarce vampires. >(...) >> If someone gets Leandro out quickly, you may well have to pay several >> pool more for some of your vampires, for instance. >> However, these are the choices you make when designing decks. > >When i design a deck, well, i don't take it for granted that leandro >will be on the table. Do you ? Why would I? But similar I wouldn't take it for granted that another Scarce-clan vampire is going to be on the table. However, in both situations, I'm going to pay more pool for my vampires. In both situations, there are things I can try to do about it. However, the crypt design issues are something you can ignore for your own purposes (or build around, if you REALLY need two such vampires). With regards other people playing the same clan, there are plenty of similar issues that can affect any deck, just not so directly in terms of pool. [ quoted text not captured ]

Screaming Vermillian a écrit : > like soulfulll vampires ala angel from buffy the > vampire slayer. no thank you.

"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message news:opsqq8za...@news.chello.hu... [ quoted text not captured ] ...and just because you're a genius, doesn't make you a smart guy. :-) DaveZ AW

Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: > Screaming Vermillian <vermil...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> Yes. I think that, given a few more years of CCG experience and were >> it to be my full time job that I cared about, I could do a decent >> job of designing cards for VTES. Better than LSJ? Probably not, but >> different, yes. Which might just be what VTES needs. Or it doesn't. >> It really is tough for me to determine what VTES needs, I just know >> that it lacks, s I create, until what I've created seems to fulfill >> what it lacks. > > You're gonna get busted for this. Until that time though, consider how > LSJ has shown remarkable flexibility when designing the sets. I > suspect very little that leaves his hands are stuff "he'd > personally like to be in the ccg". It's stuff he believes would > make the CCG better. If he sees an idea that is beneficial to the > game, he is above pride in incorporating it. He is also doing a > good job delegating parts of his desing job to invite some more > creativity and some freash ideas. > > The fact that he is an absoulte bullshit factory when it comes to Net- > -Reping is an entirely different issue, one that I suspect has more > to do with his cynical personality and immense exposure to VTES > players who seem to know everything better than him (plus me). Evidence, please? > Bye, > Daneel 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

On Tue, 17 May 2005 20:10:42 -0700, Kevin M. <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: >> Screaming Vermillian <vermil...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> Yes. I think that, given a few more years of CCG experience and were >>> it to be my full time job that I cared about, I could do a decent >>> job of designing cards for VTES. Better than LSJ? Probably not, but >>> different, yes. Which might just be what VTES needs. Or it doesn't. >>> It really is tough for me to determine what VTES needs, I just know >>> that it lacks, s I create, until what I've created seems to fulfill >>> what it lacks. >> >> You're gonna get busted for this. Until that time though, consider how >> LSJ has shown remarkable flexibility when designing the sets. I >> suspect very little that leaves his hands are stuff "he'd >> personally like to be in the ccg". It's stuff he believes would >> make the CCG better. If he sees an idea that is beneficial to the >> game, he is above pride in incorporating it. He is also doing a >> good job delegating parts of his desing job to invite some more >> creativity and some freash ideas. >> >> The fact that he is an absoulte bullshit factory when it comes to Net- >> -Reping is an entirely different issue, one that I suspect has more >> to do with his cynical personality and immense exposure to VTES >> players who seem to know everything better than him (plus me). > > Evidence, please? The evidence for my statement (that I suspect that him (LSJ) being an absoulte bullshit factory when it comes to Net-Reping is an entirely different issue, one that has more to do with his cynical personality and immense exposure to VTES players who seem to know everything better than him (plus me)) is that I posted it. I would not have posted it had I suspected to the contrary. -- Bye, Daneel

In message <opsqy8wp...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> writes: >The evidence for my statement (that I suspect that him (LSJ) being an > absoulte bullshit factory when it comes to Net-Reping is an entirely > different issue, one that has more to do with his cynical personality > and immense exposure to VTES players who seem to know everything better > than him (plus me)) is that I posted it. I would not have posted it had > I suspected to the contrary. You repeating an assertion is not evidence. Your inability to present evidence, or even understand what evidence is, is duly noted. Thanks for playing. [ quoted text not captured ]

Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > As for Garfield, I guess I've never been that impressed with him > as a genius. After creating the idea for the CCG, I've never heard > him say anything or seen him do anything that makes me think this > guy just sees stuff that normal people don't. Didn't you just define "genius" right there? > Fred [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 19 May 2005 00:14:25 +0100, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In message <opsqy8wp...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> > writes: >> The evidence for my statement (that I suspect that him (LSJ) being an >> absoulte bullshit factory when it comes to Net-Reping is an entirely >> different issue, one that has more to do with his cynical personality >> and immense exposure to VTES players who seem to know everything better >> than him (plus me)) is that I posted it. I would not have posted it had >> I suspected to the contrary. > > You repeating an assertion is not evidence. It is for what the statement covers. > Your inability to present evidence, or even understand what evidence > is, is duly noted. The evidence is there. Just try to discern the statement, and think (?) it over. > Thanks for playing. A hint: the original statement stated "I suspect". -- Bye, Daneel

Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: > A hint: the original statement stated "I suspect". <<<SIGH>>> OK. "You suspect." Fine. QUESTION: What occurrence, situation, statement, or other item or items caused your opinion of LSJ change from 'neutral' (which it must have been, by definition, before you read or heard him first state something) to 'negative' ("absoulte bullshit factory")? HINT: The fact that it is so difficult to deal with you on a written level gives some indication of your level of truthfulness and awareness of the subject matter. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 20 May 2005 17:26:31 -0700, Kevin M. <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: >> A hint: the original statement stated "I suspect". > > <<<SIGH>>> > > OK. "You suspect." Fine. > > QUESTION: What occurrence, situation, statement, or other item or items > caused your opinion of LSJ change from 'neutral' (which it must have > been, > by definition, before you read or heard him first state something) to > 'negative' ("absoulte bullshit factory")? Oversimplifying. I listed a trait, not an overall evaluation. I listed positive things as well (and my overall opinion of LSJ was, I think, a positive one, with some caveats like this). I'm not evading, just clarifying. Here in particular I am referring to his tendency to try to explain his rulings/clarifications (which is a very good thing), but in doing so often resorting to arguments that are easily labelled as unintuitive application of logic and/or grammar (and quoting those as the cause). Just some recent stuff related to this topic: - Explanation of "During X, do Y" phrase - Clarification on Telepathic Tracking - Explanation of "playing something as" (especially in relation to things like Merged Kemintiri's ability to play camarilla cards even after a Fall of the Camarilla) Note: It is obvious that things have to be either one way or the other. I don't mind LSJ telling me that this card does this or that card does that. That's his authority and prerogative. I actually like it when he explains WHY stuff works the way it does, because it helps with similar rulings. When the notion of subterfuge comes into the picture is when LSJ tells me that it is so because it is logical/obvious from the language (when in most cases it is at least slightly ambivalent). There is also the issue of some evasive replies to some questions (but in most cases those questions are insufficiently forumulated). Note that this is my opinion. I'm not trying to hide behind the "everything's subjective" general defence; I just want to make it clear so that any replies are to the point. > HINT: The fact that it is so difficult to deal with you on a written > level > gives some indication of your level of truthfulness and awareness of the > subject matter. Dunno, perhaps you should have started communicating if you wanted to. On the contrary your "Evidence?" post was far from any serious effort. You have displayed remarkable inability to discern. -- Bye, Daneel

If someone pulls their underwear off while keeping their pants on I will award them the match. Preston aka "David Bowie"

In message <opsq4997...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> writes: >I actually like it when he > explains WHY stuff works the way it does Detailed explanations of the origin of practically every ruling are available to anyone who cares to search Google. Where such explanations are unclear, it is usually possible to ask "Could you explain that, so I can try to apply it to situation Z?" However, providing full, detailed explanations of the derivation of each ruling each time someone asks "Can I play X with Y?" is extremely time- consuming, when you have multiple different forums (newsgroups, websites, mailing lists etc.) to deal with. Confusing "brevity" with "absolute bullshit factory" is, however, wrong in every conceivable way. If you want more explanations, do you think that calling someone an "absolute bullshit factory" is likely to produce them? I rather think it isn't. YMMV. >- Explanation of "During X, do Y" phrase >- Clarification on Telepathic Tracking >- Explanation of "playing something as" (especially in relation to > things like Merged Kemintiri's ability to play camarilla cards even > after a Fall of the Camarilla) All three of these can be found trivially using Google. For instance, the history of "playing something as..." comes from allies. The original ruling on allies stemmed from some contradictory/confusing interpretations that had built up over the years for situations such that the distinction between play, resolution and in-play effects had become disjointed. (The reason I remember this is that I pointed out the problem, which lead to its clarification.) <http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/1 5e9205027ceeefb?hl=en> Thus we get: **** > Since the delayed resolution is similar, I'm unsure why Akhenaten > would count as a vampire for resolution purposes of the above - and so > the action would seem to fizzle at the point of "Put this card on this > vampire". > I would ask LSJ to clarify. Good point. Probably a better ruling would draw the line between "things that happen because the card is played" and "things that happen because the card is in play". So if an ally can play a card "as a vampire", then the effects of the card go off as if he were a vampire. For other effects, including effects generated by that card remaining in play, he is not treated as a vampire. **** (Note that this isn't the actual ruling, merely the point at which its necessity was pointed out.) This is pretty much the basis of all "as a" and "as if" rulings now. ("May play X as a vampire" and "May play X as if they were Tremere" are essentially the same construction, with slightly varying wording.) Allies don't become vampires, Mata Hari doesn't become a Brujah and Kemintiri doesn't become a Justicar. They simply play/allow you to play (as appropriate to card text) cards with those requirements as if they met them. That's it. Nothing clever. Nothing harder than that. See a requirement they don't meet which matches what their card text allows? Bingo! You temporarily meet that requirement for that card. With Telepathic Tracking, the original ruling is useful: http://www.thelasombra.com/rules/RTR512.txt This also contains the ruling for allies, above. The reason I use TheLasombra's website is simply that I find it easier to find the Rules Team Rulings there, though it isn't exactly difficult on Google. This ruling explains: Effects that end combat and then do something else after combat (all in the single resolution of the effect) will fizzle if combat doesn't end or if a new combat is started. (Changes: Rotschreck followed by Fast Reaction or Psyche! will nullify the torpor effect.) Note that this doesn't apply to end combat and untap effects - the untap effect is not delayed to after combat (see Majesty ruling above). Searching for the thread on Google provides a lot of useful discussion. During X, do Y: <http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/2 d6f5d3574f830b> is the post that created it. In essence, there is nothing to explain. It simply means that if a card says "During X, do Y" it means "Once during X, do Y." If you want specifics as to why this is necessary, a number of cards would've become badly costed and significantly broken from designer intent without it. Not that designer intent is the be-all and end-all, but it is always nice to be able to maintain it where doing so does not unduly affect game balance. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

On Sun, 22 May 2005 08:50:48 +0100, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: James, Your post is very thorough and contains a lot of useful information. I think you misunderstood my post, but you seem to have replied in a sincere attempt to help me. Perhaps I have misjudged you. > In message <opsq4997...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> > writes: >> I actually like it when he >> explains WHY stuff works the way it does > > Detailed explanations of the origin of practically every ruling are > available to anyone who cares to search Google. Where such explanations > are unclear, it is usually possible to ask "Could you explain that, so I > can try to apply it to situation Z?" Yes. My point was: LSJ usually explains everything sufficiently. I listed this as a good thing. In most cases his initial answer states why stuff is the way it is; and he is always eager to provide more in-depth answers when somebody explicitly asks him. He is doing a good job as NetRep. (Caveat ahead.) > Confusing "brevity" with "absolute bullshit factory" is, however, wrong > in every conceivable way. If you want more explanations, do you think > that calling someone an "absolute bullshit factory" is likely to produce > them? I rather think it isn't. YMMV. Okay, first of all "absolute bullshit factory" might've been exaggerated. There is a point, but maybe the wording was a bit harsh (I'm not sure, I inteded it to be tongue in cheek). What I describe is not that LSJ does not give sufficient explanation for his rulings. My problem is that while he would be absolutely free to quote reasons like "game balance" or "uniform usage of a phrase", he often quotes reasons like "obvious from wording". >> - Explanation of "During X, do Y" phrase >> - Clarification on Telepathic Tracking >> - Explanation of "playing something as" (especially in relation to >> things like Merged Kemintiri's ability to play camarilla cards even >> after a Fall of the Camarilla) > > All three of these can be found trivially using Google. I completely agree with the "During X do Y" ruling as far as game balance goes. I just find the explanation of "obvious from grammar logic" a bit lacking (and unnecessarily forced, when LSJ could easily quote a number of unquestionable reasons like Game Balance or Uniformly Adapted Phrase). Other examples follow suit. > With Telepathic Tracking, the original ruling is useful: > http://www.thelasombra.com/rules/RTR512.txt > > This also contains the ruling for allies, above. The reason I use > TheLasombra's website is simply that I find it easier to find the Rules > Team Rulings there, though it isn't exactly difficult on Google. Good piece of advice. I have TheLasombra's site bookmarked, but I never used its rulings resources. That might change though. > During X, do Y: > > <http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/2 > d6f5d3574f830b> is the post that created it. In essence, there is > nothing to explain. It simply means that if a card says "During X, do > Y" it means "Once during X, do Y." > > If you want specifics as to why this is necessary, a number of cards > would've become badly costed and significantly broken from designer > intent without it. Not that designer intent is the be-all and end-all, > but it is always nice to be able to maintain it where doing so does not > unduly affect game balance. Yes. -- Bye, Daneel