New Format Idea

Something I question about VtES is why the Crypt deck is random... since it doesn't really need to be. If you need a vampire out, you just play with 4-5 copies of it. However, this rule really puts a limit on what a deck can do. And its a pain to shuffle 12 card decks. So... What about a format where you chose the order of your Crypt? Would it open up more deckbuilding options? Would it break anything? Cheers, Jason

In message <1154814777.2...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Dai <kakit...@hotmail.com> writes: >Something I question about VtES is why the Crypt deck is random... >since it doesn't really need to be. If you need a vampire out, you just >play with 4-5 copies of it. However, this rule really puts a limit on >what a deck can do. And its a pain to shuffle 12 card decks. So... I don't see how it's a pain to shuffle 12 cards. Deal them out into random piles, cut them, deal out again, table shuffle etc. It's not very hard. And it doesn't really put a limit on what a deck can do. It puts a limit on what some decks can do (if they really want to force a vampire) by giving them cluttered uncontrolled regions, but has absolutely no bearing on other decks. So some decks get exactly the vampire they want, and others don't. Some decks care about that, other decks don't. That's not a "limit", that's a trade-off. You can build big libraries that have lots of cards, or small libraries that are much tighter. That doesn't limit either deck, but it's a trade off of what you get - staying power vs efficiency, an empty library vs not drawing quite what you want due to the joys of random probability. Which such decks would you say are underpowered, at the moment? They seem to be pretty balanced against decks that don't care much what their crypt is, but this would significantly up their power, surely. Is that warranted? >What about a format where you chose the order of your Crypt? Would it >open up more deckbuilding options? Would it break anything? Break is a subjective term, particularly when it comes to vampires. However, it does have some side effects. 1a) Do you *really* want Arika decks to only have to include 2 copies of Arika, and not have any chance of choking (too many or too few), so that it can bring Arika out, have a back-up, and have two different vampires of its choice, every time? 1b) Same question, for a Stanislava Dominate-Protean deck. Woo, 2 Stanislavas, an Ingrid Rossler and an Illiana? 1c) Generally, these are very powerful decks, and one of the significant balancing factors is that the deck can get screwed over by forcing one vampire. Do we really want rid of this sort of thing? The Eldest are Kohlo Tsunda with guaranteed Tsunda? Matthias Spirit Marionette and a horde of weenies, guaranteed? 2) While it is certainly arguable that the Advancement rule is quite weak at the moment (in the sense of being relatively hard to pull off), this would significantly up its power by reducing the opportunity cost very, very hard. As it stands, it seems likely that the designers wanted it to be costly to merge a vampire - you have to go to some effort to do it, in terms of bringing out both vampires, or "wasting" master phase actions, library slots, pool etc. I'm not really sure I want a very speedy bring out of Helena, followed by a merge on the next turn, followed by lots of Kindred Coercions shutting down vote decks. 3) Talking of vote decks, Legacy of Pander is still a useful card, even it its not so powerful state. One of the interesting features of decks running it was trying to get it out at the start. They want vampires with Presence, to push a vote against an earlier popular Prince (say, Volker) who could stop it, even if they bled to get the Edge. Only two small Pander have Presence - Angela Decker and Lena Rowe. (Also Alfred, at 6/7, but he has a title and is big.) So decks would sometimes run Caitiff with Presence, or double up on vampires, or whatever, meaning that things could sometimes go non-optimally. You might not get many Pander to start with, or duplicate some of them, so the deck doesn't just run away with itself. Now, Angela and Lena in the first four vampires, no problem. 4) Minor niggle: The Stranger Humongous and Recruitment drop so far in utility that they're pretty much wallpaper, and it's not like they're overly played now. 5) It becomes relatively easy to include a throw-away vampire of a "wrong" clan, to meet requirements. Want some vote push? Okay, Rufina Soledad plus some Ventrue Headquarters in your deck. This is particularly easy if the deck already uses Fortitude in some way, but doesn't particularly need Ventrue much. Similar scenarios are available for other set-ups. Mixed clan decks have historically had potentially potent discipline combinations, at the cost of not being able to rely on clan toys. This changes that expectation radically. (Incidentally, this could downgrade specials such Tatiana Stepanova's or Mata Hari's.) -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

Dai wrote: > What about a format where you chose the order of your Crypt? Would it > open up more deckbuilding options? Would it break anything? As James points out, it would likely be open to all sorts of abuse. That being said, when testing out new decks in casual play, we aren't in any way above stacking crypts (in the sense of "I'm trying out this new deck--I'm gonna stack my crypt...") or building decks with illegal crypts in the name of trying something out (Dave is well known for showing up with 4 card crypts when he is trying something crazy that he doesn't have all the cards for). VTES is all about cost and effect. Crypt building is part of that. If you want, say, to draw a particular vampire as he is perfect for your crypt (i.e. effect), you have to include multiples on him in your crypt (cost). The higher the likelyhood of drawing Vampire X from your crypt (i.e. the more you put in) the higher the likelyhood of drawing nothing *but* that vampire in your opening draw (which is the risk of using 5 or 6 of the same vampire). Cost and effect. Monkeying with this increases the possible effect (i.e. getting a perfect crypt draw) while reducing the cost (the risk of a bad crypt draw). Which isn't necessarily a good thing. Basically, if your group likes the idea of monkeying with stacked crypts, try it out in casual play, and if you like it, keep doing it, but it is unlikely to be something to become an offical variant or whatever. -Peter

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:DZOvMLFl...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <1154814777.2...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Dai > <kakit...@hotmail.com> writes: >>Something I question about VtES is why the Crypt deck is random... >>since it doesn't really need to be. If you need a vampire out, you just >>play with 4-5 copies of it. However, this rule really puts a limit on >>what a deck can do. And its a pain to shuffle 12 card decks. So... ... > And it doesn't really put a limit on what a deck can do. Huh?!? You go on in this post to point a *bunch* of things that a deck could do using this rule. I think I agree with the points you make later on. Such a change would have too many insidious effects. It would subvert play-balance in ways that would ultimately make the game much less interesting or maybe downright boring depending on how few playable deck archetypes remained after the ones that thrive under this untested rule change choked out the rest. However, one thing you _can't_ say is that the existing rule doesn't put a limit on what a deck can do. It absolutely does - that's why it's there. It's the same thing that the previous poster wanted to do without it which exactly forms the core of the abuses that concerned you. I think the point is that the game has been tested and balanced with the existing rule in place so that existing cards and decks are as well balanced as they can be in a CCG. You can't really go and make a fundamental rule change from the set of rules the cards were designed and playtested under and expect that balance to hold up. In some ways, I appreciate the intent of the suggestion. I've always kind of hated the extreme randomness effects of completely reordering decks has on a CCG. It always drives me crazy that you can carefully edit the number of cards in a library deck towards some important goal and most games have your goal completely thwarted by having all of them randomly shuffled to the last 30 cards in the deck, or the first 30, or come up in pack in the middle, or some other weird configuration. Unfortunately, for the most part, there's no real satisfactory solution to that problem. Fred

On Sun, 6 Aug 2006, Fred Scott wrote: > It always drives me crazy that you can carefully > edit the number of cards in a library deck towards some important goal > and most games have your goal completely thwarted by having all of them > randomly shuffled to the last 30 cards in the deck, or the first 30, > or come up in pack in the middle, or some other weird configuration. > Unfortunately, for the most part, there's no real satisfactory > solution to that problem. Except for all the times that you get your cards in the right order and your prey doesn't. Ever think "I just know this bleed will be bounced" only to see your prey sigh and start counting out the pool he's lost? Matt Morgan

In message <p%nBg.20896$_c1.20366@fed1read05>, Fred Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> writes: >"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:DZOvMLFlBe1EF >w...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... >> In message <1154814777.2...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Dai >> <kakit...@hotmail.com> writes: >>>Something I question about VtES is why the Crypt deck is random... >>>since it doesn't really need to be. If you need a vampire out, you just >>>play with 4-5 copies of it. However, this rule really puts a limit on >>>what a deck can do. And its a pain to shuffle 12 card decks. So... >... >> And it doesn't really put a limit on what a deck can do. > >Huh?!? Sigh. Is it time for Fred loses the plot because someone doesn't define what they're saying to the n-th degree again? I was hoping we could put that off for a while longer. Oh well. It's a balancing factor and a trade-off. If you want to treat that as a limit, sure, knock yourself out. People can, and do, put together all sorts of crazy-ass decks, with all sorts of cards, but everything has its price in V:TES. Only having 90 cards in your library is a "limit". 7 cards in your hand is a "limit". Only having 30 pool is a "limit". Yet I would never complain that only having 30 pool limits what a deck can do. It's just how the game works. You don't have infinite pool, so that you have different meaningful choices. You don't get to set your library order, so you have different meaningful choices. You don't get to set your crypt order, so you have meaningful choices. Meaningful choices create a framework for strategy and differentiation. Meaningful choices mean that the differences between an average player and a strong player are magnified, because the strong player has another meaningful choice to make. Does that "limit" the average player? Sure, knock yourself out. But you know, you work with the choices you're given. You want a deck where you can bring out Arika, Queen Anne and Suhailah? You can build it. People do build them. The choices you make affect your deck. The choices I make affect mine. I can still build the Legacy of Pander deck and make a strong setup for bringing out a Presence oriented vampire - I can include duplicate vampires, I can include weenie Presence vampires who will let me pass (but won't benefit from) the Legacy of Pander - perhaps a copy of Lolita or Frederick the Weak to spice things up and make my life a little bit easier in some ways, but in some ways a little bit harder. Only being able to play with cards you have a legal copy of is a "limit", too. Grouping is a "limit". These are just basic axioms of V:TES. They're a "limit" in much the same way that the law of gravity is a "limit" on your behaviour. >You go on in this post to point a *bunch* of things that a deck >could do using this rule. Things that could be *guaranteed*, not things that can't be done or tried now. You can still those things using the present rules set, but you have a meaningful choice to make - do I use library slots for Gift of Experience, do I use different technology in my deck to push a vote, do I include Recruitment in my deck, do I allow the probability of deck shuffling to be the over-riding factor in the success of getting the vampires I want. You want a Ventrue out to play the HQ? Well, you can do that. Or you can go for Mata Hari, to nullify the need for one. Or you can include Clan Impersonation. Or you can do a whole heap of other things. Is that a limit? Go ahead, if you must. It's a cost, it's a consideration, it's a choice for a deck-builder to make. They get it right, or maybe they get it wrong. They don't get it for free, because we generally want a game where the challenge differentiates players. These are balancing factors. If you want to call those limits, fine. I don't call clan requirements "limits", but I'll be expecting you to call them that in the future. I don't call blood costs "limits", but sure, you go ahead and do that. >However, one thing you _can't_ say is that the existing rule doesn't >put a limit on what a deck can do. If you read beyond the sentence you quoted, you'd see a fuller and more detailed explanation. That's not a "limit", that's a trade-off. You can build big libraries that have lots of cards, or small libraries that are much tighter. That doesn't limit either deck, but it's a trade off of what you get - staying power vs efficiency, an empty library vs not drawing quite what you want due to the joys of random probability. It's a trade off chosen by the designers to create meaningful strategy, just like not being able to have an infinite number of tanks, soldiers and resources in a hex-map wargame creates meaningful strategy, or having to choose between being a warrior or a mage in Dungeons and Dragons gives meaningful differentiation between players. You get to decide whether the costs exceed the benefit, whether you can work with the costs, whether it will suit your playstyle. It's a difference of intentionality, and the framework created. The rules create the game, rather than limiting it. In some absolutist sense, they limit everything by not being some other bunch of rules, but they're not regarded as limits by and large because without them the game just wouldn't be the game. They facilitate the game rather than stifling it - assuming they're well executed. The fact that the rules for V:TES aren't the same as the rules for Magic is a "limit", and the fact that V:TES has a randomized crypt is a "limit", and the fact that you have 12 vampires rather than 8 or 2 is a "limit". The fact that my vampires need disciplines to play disciplined cards is a "limit" - it stops me making some decks! Everything in CCGs limits everything, everything in every game is a limit, in this narrow absolutist sense. If you really, really, really want to go down this road, the fact that LSJ won't print every card we've ever suggested is a limit. The fact that I can't make up my own vampires for sanctioned tournament play is a limit. The fact that there isn't an OBE THA FOR PRE OBF vampire for 4 pool is a limit. The horror of the limits. Oh, the horror. How I weep for the unborn decks, stifled in the womb of creativity by the limits forced upon us. But no, that's just the game, and how the game is designed and developed. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Matthew T. Morgan" <far...@io.com> wrote in message news:2006080611...@eris.io.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Sure. But is it really fun to win like that, either? I mean, yeah, these unexpected windfalls seem delightful in the midst of a game. And I'll grant, there is some skill to sensing when your opponents aren't holding the cards that are supposed to be in their decks and taking advantage. Still, on balance, I think the utter randomness of deck ordering is one of the huge weaknesses of CCGs as strategy games. Fred

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:L1CtHMKU...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <p%nBg.20896$_c1.20366@fed1read05>, Fred Scott > <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> writes: >>"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:DZOvMLFlBe1EF >>w...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... >>> In message <1154814777.2...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Dai >>> <kakit...@hotmail.com> writes: >>>>Something I question about VtES is why the Crypt deck is random... >>>>since it doesn't really need to be. If you need a vampire out, you just >>>>play with 4-5 copies of it. However, this rule really puts a limit on >>>>what a deck can do. And its a pain to shuffle 12 card decks. So... >>... >>> And it doesn't really put a limit on what a deck can do. >> >>Huh?!? > > Sigh. Is it time for Fred loses the plot because someone doesn't define > what they're saying to the n-th degree again? I was hoping we could put > that off for a while longer. Oh well. > > It's a balancing factor and a trade-off. If you want to treat that as a > limit, sure, knock yourself out. I was just saying the comment above denies the exact point you later affirmed: that the randomness of deck ordering indeed does limit what a deck can do. When you complained that the proposal would allow an Arika deck to get by with only two copies of Arika and still allow it to be certain of drawing Arika, the problem is exactly that a limitation caused by deck randomness would be circumvented. It's one and same issue and it needs to be understood that way in order to understand why the deck order has to be random. At least, I _hope_ his comment about shuffling the deck being a pain was thrown in as a joke... >>You go on in this post to point a *bunch* of things that a deck >>could do using this rule. > > Things that could be *guaranteed*, not things that can't be done or > tried now. But the guarantee is realistically the whole point. Sure, I can play with two copies of my key vampire. It's legal. I'll just lose shitlessly a bunch of games I don't draw him/her/it and that will make the memories of playing the deck very painful. Not many people like playing with pain so they stop doing it. In the real, practical world, randomness is clearly a limitation. It may not be as much of one as if there was something written in the rules, people may choose to ignore it and lose (much more commonly, we all push the edges of good judgment in order to play something we like) but so what? The motivation of deckbuilding is ultimately to build a deck that wins. So your protests about the distinction between an absolute vs. a practical limit are pretty much beside the point. I guess I was assuming the guy wanted to order his crypt to get around the practical limits or else I wouldn't see what the point would be. > It's a trade off chosen by the designers to create meaningful strategy, > just like not being able to have an infinite number of tanks, soldiers > and resources in a hex-map wargame creates meaningful strategy, or > having to choose between being a warrior or a mage in Dungeons and > Dragons gives meaningful differentiation between players. You get to > decide whether the costs exceed the benefit, whether you can work with > the costs, whether it will suit your playstyle. I understand all that. I appreciate that it's left to judgment to decide how many copies of Arika I have to thrown in the deck to balance the chances of not drawing her against the ability to draw other, less crucial vampires. I just think making that distinction in that context is beside the point. Random deck ordering is not the only way a CCG could have been designed. Richard Garfield could have designated the crypt to be a player-ordered pile of vampires and it would have worked just fine as a game. It wouldn't have allowed players to test their judgment about exactly how many copies of a vampire they should use to make their deck work best. But it would have allowed more leeway for focusing decks toward one strategy or another and I think I might have liked the results better, especially given that crypt deck ordering wouldn't have to be this horribly capricious element to the game. If there's any point to a person proposing to allow player-ordered crypt decks, it's to circumvent the practical limit. Noting that such randomness introduces a strategic element to the game is meaningless at this point. It might be meaningful if we were all sitting around designing a game from scratch but we're not. We're talking about a real game with real cards that have already been designed to the existing framework. And that is the relevant reason why changing course at this point - even if just to the extent of proposing an optional rule - is a proposal that's untenable. > Everything in CCGs limits everything, everything in every game is a > limit, in this narrow absolutist sense. If you really, really, really > want to go down this road, the fact that LSJ won't print every card > we've ever suggested is a limit. The fact that I can't make up my own > vampires for sanctioned tournament play is a limit. The fact that there > isn't an OBE THA FOR PRE OBF vampire for 4 pool is a limit. > > The horror of the limits. Oh, the horror. Limits have their uses, as you note. And they have drawbacks. The fact that you can't just make up vampires limits creativity in deckbuilding but obviously it's a limit that needs to exist. On the other hand, there is clearly an incentive to do away with it, at least to some degree. I seem to recall a variant called "Create-A-Clan" that's been played in a number of venues where large numbers of players gather. So apparently the issue of limiting people to printed vampires isn't quite the slam dunk you make it out to be. People like to discuss things like that. Which is what the guy who started the thread was doing. Fred

Fred Scott skrev: > > Sure. But is it really fun to win like that, either? I mean, yeah, these > unexpected windfalls seem delightful in the midst of a game. And I'll > grant, there is some skill to sensing when your opponents aren't holding > the cards that are supposed to be in their decks and taking advantage. > Still, on balance, I think the utter randomness of deck ordering is one > of the huge weaknesses of CCGs as strategy games. > Heh, two days from now we'll play an unsanctioned tournament circumventing just this ;) I previously asked for input on what I called "Stacking the deck", a format I believe I've stolen from this very newsgroup, and hopefully modified somewhat. Crypt: As usual. Library: 60 - 90 cards. Pregame: Split library in three parts. A part must have at least zero cards. Designate each part starting deck, midgame deck and endgame deck. Shuffle each deck separately and place them in order. Game: Each player starts with their starting deck, which for all purposes is considered their ENTIRE deck. When first player is ousted starting deck is discarded, all of it, including your hand. Each player now plays their midgame deck. Same rules. Second player ousted and it's time for the endgame decks. Finish the game with the endgame decks. There is certainly a number of BAD things that can occur if you do this, but at least library-cards offer counters to other library cards. It's equal for everyone, even though I can see some decktypes gaining from this format. And - it's an unsanctioned tournament, for fun :) This is the format we have announced. Maybe starting and midgame decks should have beem "removed from game" rather than "discarded". I don't know. Sten During -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

James Coupe wrote: > > And it doesn't really put a limit on what a deck can do. It puts a > limit on what some decks can do (if they really want to force a vampire) > by giving them cluttered uncontrolled regions, but has absolutely no > bearing on other decks. So some decks get exactly the vampire they > want, and others don't. Some decks care about that, other decks don't. > I think from a deckbuilding perspective, the decks that care about forcing specific vampires for their disciplines, titles or abilities, are more interesting than decks that are random. Successful decks that focus on a specific theme among all their vampires (such as weenie presence, potence or animalism, or cam princes) abuse degeneracy just as much if not even more as decks with more structure. I appreciate the value of chaos as much as the next Erisian, but I think there is already enough randomness in the Library deck for a two hour investment. > > Which such decks would you say are underpowered, at the moment? They > seem to be pretty balanced against decks that don't care much what their > crypt is, but this would significantly up their power, surely. Is that > warranted? > Decks that wouldn't be played because the math doesn't work for them, because they use vampires that don't "cut it" on a power level to focus a deck around, despite having interesting disciplines and specials. Vampires that need the support of other specific vampires for support in order to be pushed into viability. One of the joys of the game is that I'd say 90% of the vampires are playable. Most weenies are playable, although some are more valuable than others. Most mid- caps are decent and wont cost you VPs if you run them, although again some such as Jost Werner or Isabel Giovanni are much better than others. And the high caps are still a mixed bag. If you could order your crypt, you might see Marthe Dizier or Silvia Giovanni played more often, but they still wouldn't be as good as Gratiano or Stanislava. The best would still be played more often, the worst are still unplayable, but it would be the vampires that are "almost" and in between that would see more life. Vampires that you could argue "are good!" and I'd agree with you, like Bindusara, Tatiana Romanov, Lucas Halton and Anastadz... but aren't quite good enough for either the spotlight role or even limelight role since they lack a critical title or +1 bleed for them to be worth the investment. > > Break is a subjective term, particularly when it comes to vampires. > However, it does have some side effects. > These are some good ideas. > 1a) Do you *really* want Arika decks to only have to include 2 copies of > Arika, and not have any chance of choking (too many or too few), > so that it can bring Arika out, have a back-up, and have two > different vampires of its choice, every time? > > 1b) Same question, for a Stanislava Dominate-Protean deck. Woo, 2 > Stanislavas, an Ingrid Rossler and an Illiana? > > 1c) Generally, these are very powerful decks, and one of the significant > balancing factors is that the deck can get screwed over by > forcing one vampire. Do we really want rid of this sort of > thing? The Eldest are Kohlo Tsunda with guaranteed Tsunda? > Matthias Spirit Marionette and a horde of weenies, guaranteed? > These sort of decks are already consistant enough to get table wins. Ordering crypts wouldn't make these decks viable, since they already are. I think, these decks are viable because the vampires these decks are based around are so powerful (Arika and Stanislava) that you really just need another warm body for utility for them to chump through their prey. Random crypt draw doesn't redress the problems these vampires cause at all. But vampires that are a step or two steps down from them might actually have a competitive chance if they could guarantee the right support. > 2) While it is certainly arguable that the Advancement rule is quite > weak at the moment (in the sense of being relatively hard to > pull off), this would significantly up its power by reducing the > opportunity cost very, very hard. As it stands, it seems likely > that the designers wanted it to be costly to merge a vampire - > you have to go to some effort to do it, in terms of bringing out > both vampires, or "wasting" master phase actions, library slots, > pool etc. > > I'm not really sure I want a very speedy bring out of Helena, > followed by a merge on the next turn, followed by lots of > Kindred Coercions shutting down vote decks. > Yeah, I was already considering the impact on Advanced vampires. As you say, this would push all the advanced vampires into becoming more viable. Which of course in my view would be a good thing. There isn't a single "serious" deck that counts on advancement because the math doesn't work. So for me it wouldn't be a bad thing if Count Germaine, Dominique, Teygerius, Kemintiri, Helena or Lucita became as viable as Arika or Alexandra. > 5) It becomes relatively easy to include a throw-away vampire of a > "wrong" clan, to meet requirements. Want some vote push? Okay, > Rufina Soledad plus some Ventrue Headquarters in your deck. > This is particularly easy if the deck already uses Fortitude in > some way, but doesn't particularly need Ventrue much. Similar > scenarios are available for other set-ups. Mixed clan decks > have historically had potentially potent discipline > combinations, at the cost of not being able to rely on clan > toys. This changes that expectation radically. (Incidentally, > this could downgrade specials such Tatiana Stepanova's or Mata > Hari's.) > Good ideas... I think that would make things more interesting, not less. And I think Tatiana would be more valuable, since you could include her in a normal Ravnos deck without having to devote so much deck space on her. She would bring more to the table without taking up a big share of the pie and be a good support for someone like Hazimel. I think some vampires with specific/ meta abilities such as Brunhilde or Gisela would be more valuable as another effect. What I would be more worried about would be specific cards that would be pushed if crypts were ordered. Two cards that would greatly benefit are Illusions of Kindred and Soul Gem of Etrius. But I don't think they would become unbalanced. I think the bottom line isn't really about degeneracy and breaking the game. The game is intrinsically resilient to abuse. The bottom line is whether this variant would increase or decrease variety and viability. Cheers, Jason [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sun, 6 Aug 2006 11:12:45 -0700, "Fred Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: >Still, on balance, I think the utter randomness of deck ordering is one >of the huge weaknesses of CCGs as strategy games. > >Fred I find it to be the reason why I'd much rather play CCGs than chess. Really, wouldn't you say that randomness of deck order is a defining characteristic of CCGs? I wonder what poker players would say about the weakness of strategy in their game of random deck ordering.

> >Still, on balance, I think the utter randomness of deck ordering is one > >of the huge weaknesses of CCGs as strategy games. > > > >Fred > > I find it to be the reason why I'd much rather play CCGs than chess. > > Really, wouldn't you say that randomness of deck order is a defining > characteristic of CCGs? > > I wonder what poker players would say about the weakness of strategy > in their game of random deck ordering. Excellent analogy. They would probably say that all the art of poker is knowing the probabilities of one combination happening rather than another, and optimizing their strategy AND their bluff with that knowledge in mind. Which, IME, is an important part of what makes a good VTES player. Another thing they could say is that they would be quite happy with the possibilities of probability-altering we have : putting a card in various numbers, reducing the library down to 60 or augmenting the crypt (which is often underestimated : if you need a vamp but are afraid of putting him 4 times in 12 cards, you can put him 4 times in 13, 14 or 15, the statistics will differ). And I think the game is fine as it is in matters of rules ; if some crypts suffer more than other, new vampires can make a difference, and if we decide to build a deck with a "difficult" crypt, then it might be because we think it's worth it ! Either that or we just want to have fun, not caring about winning, and in that case optimisation shouldn't be an issue. -- Orpheus Nearly made it to LSJ's Killfile !!

James Coupe wrote: > 1a) Do you *really* want Arika decks to only have to include 2 copies of > Arika, and not have any chance of choking (too many or too few), > so that it can bring Arika out, have a back-up, and have two > different vampires of its choice, every time? Your success against an Arika deck is far, far more dependent upon whether the decks at the table are equipped to handle an Arika deck than the odds of the Arika deck getting crypt screwed. > 1b) Same question, for a Stanislava Dominate-Protean deck. Woo, 2 > Stanislavas, an Ingrid Rossler and an Illiana? Same answer. > 1c) Generally, these are very powerful decks, and one of the significant > balancing factors is that the deck can get screwed over by > forcing one vampire. Do we really want rid of this sort of > thing? The Eldest are Kohlo Tsunda with guaranteed Tsunda? > Matthias Spirit Marionette and a horde of weenies, guaranteed? I'm pretty sure I play "one key vampire" decks more than just about everyone out there, and in my experience, the chance of not drawing the key vampire in the initial draw isn't a significant balancing factor. It should happen only about once every 15-20 games. What I've found to be a more significant factor is a mid- to late-game situation where you've gained an advantage and want to build on it by bringing out another vampire, but you keep drawing copies of the key vampire in the deck and not a support vamp. I've only found this to be more than a minor nuisance about once or twice, however. > 2) While it is certainly arguable that the Advancement rule is quite > weak at the moment (in the sense of being relatively hard to > pull off), this would significantly up its power by reducing the > opportunity cost very, very hard. As it stands, it seems likely > that the designers wanted it to be costly to merge a vampire - > you have to go to some effort to do it, in terms of bringing out > both vampires, or "wasting" master phase actions, library slots, > pool etc. > > I'm not really sure I want a very speedy bring out of Helena, > followed by a merge on the next turn, followed by lots of > Kindred Coercions shutting down vote decks. On the flip side, people might be more inclined to play Anarchs. ;) Still, you're right that the opportunity cost to merge a vampire becomes zero. At the same time, I'm not entirely certain that would be all that bad. > 3) Talking of vote decks, Legacy of Pander... They're typically crapshoot decks anyway, since they're hoping that the table has neither the table votes nor the intercept to shut them down early. > 4) Minor niggle: The Stranger Humongous and Recruitment drop so far in > utility that they're pretty much wallpaper, and it's not like > they're overly played now. It's a pity, since I love the art for The Stranger Among Us. > 5) It becomes relatively easy to include a throw-away vampire of a > "wrong" clan, to meet requirements... This is the real reason why choosing your starting crypt is a bad idea, as it would drop the opportunity cost for playing the vast majority of cards in the game. You could do the same for disciplines and sects. Beyond just throw-away vamps, you could build an entire deck around the concept. Still, the idea of choosing your crypt is fun to think about. I'm pretty sure that Garfield decided that it'd be more fun and more challenging to the players to require a random crypt draw, if only to ensure that a given deck not play the same way every time. - Ben Peal

<cur...@aol.commetal> wrote in message news:mfocd211uvarg0lrl...@4ax.com... > On Sun, 6 Aug 2006 11:12:45 -0700, "Fred Scott" > <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > > >Still, on balance, I think the utter randomness of deck ordering is one > >of the huge weaknesses of CCGs as strategy games. > > > >Fred > > I find it to be the reason why I'd much rather play CCGs than chess. You might like this then: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischerandom I haven't tried it, but I like the idea of it. Cheers, WES

On Sun, 6 Aug 2006, Fred Scott wrote: >> Except for all the times that you get your cards in the right order and your prey doesn't. Ever think "I just know this bleed >> will be bounced" only to see your prey sigh and start counting out the pool he's lost? > > Sure. But is it really fun to win like that, either? I mean, yeah, these > unexpected windfalls seem delightful in the midst of a game. And I'll > grant, there is some skill to sensing when your opponents aren't holding > the cards that are supposed to be in their decks and taking advantage. In my experience most games are won because somebody didn't draw the right card or something. Occasionally you'll find that one deck trumped all the others, but I think that's rare. Usually someone didn't draw enough stealth or Conditionings or something. So yeah, it's fun. Winning is fun. Give it a whirl. :) > Still, on balance, I think the utter randomness of deck ordering is one > of the huge weaknesses of CCGs as strategy games. No, it's part of the strategy. You attempt to build a deck that will function well enough even if the cards don't come up in exactly the right order. If you don't like randomness, play Chess. Matt Morgan

Fred Scott wrote: > I > seem to recall a variant called "Create-A-Clan" that's been played in a > number of venues where large numbers of players gather. I seem to recall playing in one, even. > So apparently > the issue of limiting people to printed vampires isn't quite the slam > dunk you make it out to be. Worth noting that Create-A-Clan has some pretty strict limits on what you can include for your vampires, to limit abusiveness, and then limits how many of each vampire you can include in your deck (2) - in some ways, a Create-a-Clan crypt is even more limited than a normal crypt - it chiefly allows you to play with a set of 'in clan disciplines/sect' that doesn't exist in the main game. So it's definitely a 'some ways looser, some ways tighter' set of limits. > Fred -John Flournoy

Dai wrote: > These sort of decks are already consistant enough to get table wins. > Ordering crypts wouldn't make these decks viable, since they already > are. I think, these decks are viable because the vampires these decks > are based around are so powerful (Arika and Stanislava) that you really > just need another warm body for utility for them to chump through their > prey. Random crypt draw doesn't redress the problems these vampires > cause at all. But vampires that are a step or two steps down from them > might actually have a competitive chance if they could guarantee the > right support. > > What I would be more worried about would be specific cards that would > be pushed if crypts were ordered. Two cards that would greatly benefit > are Illusions of Kindred and Soul Gem of Etrius. But I don't think they > would become unbalanced. There are certain already-consistent decks that'd get up-powered; Turbo-Baron would seem to be a principal candidate, because the deck could now be played without the need for 8 or so Coroner's Contacts to insure that you get the Baron out promptly. So in that case, the deck would work exactly like it already does, only more efficiently and with the ability to make the Library even more focused. > Cheers, > > Jason -John Flournoy

<cur...@aol.commetal> wrote in message news:mfocd211uvarg0lrl...@4ax.com... > On Sun, 6 Aug 2006 11:12:45 -0700, "Fred Scott" > <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: >>Still, on balance, I think the utter randomness of deck ordering is one >>of the huge weaknesses of CCGs as strategy games. > > I find it to be the reason why I'd much rather play CCGs than chess. > > Really, wouldn't you say that randomness of deck order is a defining > characteristic of CCGs? "Chess" vs. "CCGs" is the very definition of the term "false dichotomy". Sure, I understand that randomness, in some form, is a good thing. Plus there are a number of random factors in the game having nothing to do with deck ordering, like metagame matchups and even the personalities of your various opponents which work well with or grate on you (and vica versa), affect your abilities to work deals of mutual benefit. (For that matter a "random" factor in chess could be considered the quality and play style of the opponent you draw. That's pretty meager, but there it is.) Anyway, I didn't mean to suggest anything of the sort like "randomness is bad". But I wonder if people always apprectiate the degree and importance of randomness in deck ordering. I don't think you'd have turn the game into chess in order to back the randomness down a bit. You could do a number of different things, like allow players to draw their opening hand and shuffle the rest of the cards. You could do something like Sten's "beginning game", "mid- game", and "late game" decks (albeit I'm not sure I'd cause the changeover to happen the same way but you get the point). There's all sorts of mitigating rules you could create to address this problem. You don't have to make decks be utterly random, from card #1 to card #X (where X is the deck size). It just happened that way because it it's the easiest and conceptually most comprehensible thing you can do with a deck of cards. But it really causes problems in CCGs. For that matter, both Magic and V:tES contain cards that are intended to address this problem - although in Magic, some of them wound up getting banned later because they had such an enormous effect on strategy. The whole point of cards like Magic of the Smith, Sibyl's Tongue, Fortschritt Library, and Muricia's Call is to address the fact that cards may not come up in the right order, so here are things that give you some ability to work around the problems caused. They're kind of small mitigations of a huge issue, but the fact that they exist at all says something. > I wonder what poker players would say about the weakness of strategy > in their game of random deck ordering. I wonder who suggested deck ordering was a weakness of strategy in poker? Not me. My comments only addressed CCGs. Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] It'd certainly make me chuck a Kaymakli Nightmares or three into every deck I play - 'now your perfect crypt is randomized, too bad your deck isn't built to cope with that, bwah hah hah!' :P > Jason -John Flournoy

"Matthew T. Morgan" <far...@io.com> wrote in message news:2006080708...@fnord.io.com... > In my experience most games are won because somebody didn't draw the right > card or something. Occasionally you'll find that one deck trumped all the > others, but I think that's rare. Usually someone didn't draw enough > stealth or Conditionings or something. > > So yeah, it's fun. Winning is fun. Give it a whirl. :) Sure, U gusss that's easy for _you_ to say! :-) So that's your big winning secret? Wait 'til your opponent doesn't draw the right card or something and then...er...pounce? You'll have to expound on that some more. I'm just not very good at it. Actually, I'm usually the poor sap who doesn't draw the right card or something and gets hammered. So that probably explains our varying attitudes about this. In all seriousness, I realize winning players generally make their luck or, as Napolean once said, "He may be brilliant, but is he lucky?" (Quote is probably not exact; there's a zillion variations on this particular anecdote running around.) And I still love the V:tES despite this particular foible. But I'm just saying, it isn't necessary for a game to be designed in this way and, IMHO, it ultimately detracts from the game. Yes, I agree with you that it's part of the strategy to consider randomness issues as you build your deck and to deal with them as you play it. (And I suspect I'm not very good at the latter, which is one of the reasons I'm not such a good player.) But requiring players to focus on it as an important issue makes it less possible to concentrate on other strategy issues that might make the game more fun in the long run. For instance, you can't build early game, mid-game, and late game strategies into decks to a very great extent because of the fear you'll draw cards at the wrong time. This limits the kind of cards the designers can reasonably bother designing and it limits the effectiveness of the ones they do design. Your milage may vary but I, for one, find this completely regrettable. > If you don't like randomness, play Chess. Per my reply to Curevei, the comment presents a totally false dichotomy. The choice is not between one or the other. Fred

Fred Scott wrote: > Anyway, I didn't mean to suggest anything of the sort like "randomness > is bad". But I wonder if people always apprectiate the degree and > importance of randomness in deck ordering. I don't think you'd > have turn the game into chess in order to back the randomness > down a bit. You could do a number of different things, like allow > players to draw their opening hand and shuffle the rest of the > cards. You could do something like Sten's "beginning game", "mid- > game", and "late game" decks (albeit I'm not sure I'd cause the > changeover to happen the same way but you get the point). There's > all sorts of mitigating rules you could create to address this > problem. Mulligans exist in several CCGs to address the issue (but only in the "opening hand" sense). But, yes, other options exist (and, indeed, an uncountable number of them, probably). For instance: Have a player's library be "open" to him (but not to other players). That way, you know exactly what's coming up and when (until you're forced to reshuffle, of course -- but most of the "shuffle afterwards" could then just be dropped, since they presuppose a closed library -- only the insertion of cards into the library would have to be "insert at a random position in the library") Or you could use a card holder to hold the queue of the top N cards of the library, so those cards are visible to the owner. When you draw, you draw the "top" card from the holder, slide the others over and turn the next card form the library into the bottom slot of the holder. Neither of which adjust the random arrangement of the deck, but they do reduce the negative impact of it on play (so you can plan on the cards you'll draw, rather than praying to top deck what you need). Same for Crypt, naturally. > You don't have to make decks be utterly random, from > card #1 to card #X (where X is the deck size). It just happened > that way because it it's the easiest and conceptually most > comprehensible thing you can do with a deck of cards. But it > really causes problems in TCGs. Where "problems" is subjective (as per other places in this thread), perhaps. I think of it more as simply an aspect of card games. All card games. An aspect that can be exploited (meaning simply taking into account) by the rules (and, consequently, by saavy players) in any card game (where "rules" includes card text for card games with rules-text-on-cards logistics, like most TCGs). Whether by mulligan rules, deck striping rules (like the separation of library and crypt in VTES, or early-library/late-library separations in some house rules), deck mining rules (like Magic of the Smith), &c.

In message <1154913154.5...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Ben Peal <ni...@ofdoom.com> writes: >> 1c) Generally, these are very powerful decks, and one of the significant >> balancing factors is that the deck can get screwed over by >> forcing one vampire. Do we really want rid of this sort of >> thing? The Eldest are Kohlo Tsunda with guaranteed Tsunda? >> Matthias Spirit Marionette and a horde of weenies, guaranteed? > > I'm pretty sure I play "one key vampire" decks more than just about >everyone out there, and in my experience, the chance of not drawing >the key vampire in the initial draw isn't a significant balancing >factor. It should happen only about once every 15-20 games. > > What I've found to be a more significant factor is a mid- to late- >game situation where you've gained an advantage and want to build on >it by bringing out another vampire, but you keep drawing copies of >the key vampire in the deck and not a support vamp. I've only found >this to be more than a minor nuisance about once or twice, however. This is, in fact, one of the points I was making. 4 or 5 copies of Arika (or 6, or 7, or whatever) means you probably draw Arika. 5/12 is a 7% chance not to draw, 4/12 is about 14%. <http://groups.google.com/g roup/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/a8fa1522582007d2> is my point of reference, for the stats. But it doesn't mean you get a nice crypt other than that. The chances of 3 copies are non-negligible - 34% and 42% for 4 and 5 copies in 12. That's one game per three-round tournament where you only have one other vampire to bring out. If you take the chances of 3 or 4 in a 4/12 or 5/12 deck, they become over 40 and 50% chances. That's not going to be that easy to work with either, as you have to slow down to get new vampires out - or maybe spend library resources that you wouldn't otherwise choose to (Effective Management, Info Highway, or whatever works for you). And, of course, it's entirely possible when forcing Arika out (or Stanislava, or Matthias, or Tsunda, or any other star vampire) to get exactly the situation you describe. 2 copies of Arika plus a crypt of ordered vampires so you know exactly what you can get eliminates all of this. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:1154979398.7...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... >> You don't have to make decks be utterly random, from >> card #1 to card #X (where X is the deck size). It just happened >> that way because it it's the easiest and conceptually most >> comprehensible thing you can do with a deck of cards. But it >> really causes problems in TCGs. > > Where "problems" is subjective (as per other places in this thread), > perhaps. Agreed. Quite possibly it bothers me a lot more than it bothers most people. I'm not sure whether it's because others don't obsess about the implications of it as much as I do or if the implications just don't bother most people. > I think of it more as simply an aspect of card games. All card games. But the point is, does it always have to be an aspect of every single card game? At least it's good to see someone else has considered alternatives to the total-shuffle-and-draw-blindly aspect of this. Although it's long past the time any of this thought could do much good for V:tES (other than the design of new cards - which can only affect it to a very limited extent), for the design of new games I can imagine it being the difference between 'just another CCG' and a new game that has a truly different flavor to it. Maybe one of these days I'll create something and show everybody. :-) Fred

On Mon, 7 Aug 2006, Fred Scott wrote: > Sure, U gusss that's easy for _you_ to say! :-) So that's your big > winning secret? Wait 'til your opponent doesn't draw the right card > or something and then...er...pounce? You'll have to expound on that > some more. I'm just not very good at it. There are plenty of ways to gain intelligence about an opponent's hand. There are the obvious methods, like Le Dinh Tho and Revelations. There are the sneaky methods, like attempting to draw out a Delaying Tactics with a KRC before going ahead with a Parity Shift. There are reads. There is card counting. There is telepathy. Make an educated guess about what your enemy has and then plan an attack based on that. That makes a lot more sense than just putting on blinders and bleeding forward. > Actually, I'm usually the poor sap who doesn't draw the right > card or something and gets hammered. So that probably explains > our varying attitudes about this. I try to build decks that can survive the rough times, move cards and get to the ones I need. Dealing with hand jam and poor draws is part of strategy. Players who ignore these potential problems will be more subject to "bad luck." > In all seriousness, I realize winning players generally make their > luck or, as Napolean once said, "He may be brilliant, but is he > lucky?" (Quote is probably not exact; there's a zillion variations > on this particular anecdote running around.) I'm not going to jump all over you if you didn't get the quote quite right. It's not my way. Besides, he probably said it in French. Yeah, luck is hugely important in v:tes. However, there are many cards that allow players to make their own luck. > And I still love the > V:tES despite this particular foible. But I'm just saying, it > isn't necessary for a game to be designed in this way and, IMHO, > it ultimately detracts from the game. It seems so integral to the game, I can hardly imagine things without it. It would be kind of like doing a constructed 11 card format (like Duffin Draft, only you get to pick your 11 cards). People talk about how v:tes can be a game of rock-paper-scissors now. Imagine if you could redraw the same 7 card hand every turn. Is that what you'd like to see? I guess it could be interesting, but I think we'd have to shorten the game. It would quickly become apparent whether or not a player has chosen the correct 7 cards for a particular game. > Yes, I agree with you that > it's part of the strategy to consider randomness issues as you > build your deck and to deal with them as you play it. (And I > suspect I'm not very good at the latter, which is one of the > reasons I'm not such a good player.) But requiring players to > focus on it as an important issue makes it less possible to > concentrate on other strategy issues that might make the game > more fun in the long run. So one strategy element is more fun than another? Would you like to rate them in order of mostest funnest to leastest funnest? > For instance, you can't build early > game, mid-game, and late game strategies into decks to a very > great extent because of the fear you'll draw cards at the wrong > time. Sure you can. I've played Rachel Brandywine decks with plenty of Dreams of the Sphinx that can return 3 drawn cards to my library every turn in hopes of drawing the more immediately useful cards. It's great. Other players have done amazing things with Storage Annex or ashheap recursion. Look at some of Ben Peal's twister decks and tell me he doesn't have an early game, mid game and late game strategy built in. > This limits the kind of cards the designers can reasonably > bother designing and it limits the effectiveness of the ones they > do design. I think you're wrong there. The design team introduced Convictions in the most recent set and wanted to include a mechanism that allows players to always be able to get Convictions, despite shuffling. No problem. If the design team felt another card was so important that it should operate similarly outside the normal random draw, another new mechanic could be invented. > Your milage may vary but I, for one, find this > completely regrettable. > >> If you don't like randomness, play Chess. > > Per my reply to Curevei, the comment presents a totally false > dichotomy. The choice is not between one or the other. I never said it was. I just thought it might seem snotty to make a different suggestion for you, like Chutes and Ladders. Matt Morgan

Fred Scott wrote: > > I think of it more as simply an aspect of card games. All card games. > > But the point is, does it always have to be an aspect of every > single card game? At least it's good to see someone else has > considered alternatives to the total-shuffle-and-draw-blindly > aspect of this. Although it's long past the time any of this > thought could do much good for V:tES (other than the design of > new cards - which can only affect it to a very limited extent), > for the design of new games I can imagine it being the difference > between 'just another CCG' and a new game that has a truly different > flavor to it. There are several CCGs where the opening draw is either semi-random or not-random; if memory serves for instance Rage let you pick your opening spread of minions, Doomtown definitely let you pick your opening dudes-in-play, and several others have as well. Usually those games have some sort of points-system where your opening hand/minions must be less than some fixed total-cost-amount. > Fred -John Flournoy

Fred Scott wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > > I think of it more as simply an aspect of card games. All card games. > > But the point is, does it always have to be an aspect of every > single card game? Depending on your definition of card game, yes. I mean, you could use cards representing checkers or chessmen on an 8x8 arrangement of card-sized spaces and play cardchess or carddraughts, and that would eliminate the random aspect of the shuffle from the "card game". But I wouldn't call it a card game. Card games all have this aspect, by nature. Some mitigate it by using a striped deck (multiple distinct decks), like VTES, Monopoly, &c. But the shuffle is always there. Otherwise, you're just using tokens (possible hidden tokens, but tokens nonetheless) -- as in Lord of the Rings, the Confrontation, which uses a "deck" of 9 "cards" which the player "draws" all of into his hand of 9 and plays one at a time until his hand is exhausted, at which point he draws them all back into his hand.

"Matthew T. Morgan" <far...@io.com> wrote in message news:2006080714...@eris.io.com... >> Actually, I'm usually the poor sap who doesn't draw the right >> card or something and gets hammered. So that probably explains >> our varying attitudes about this. > > I try to build decks that can survive the rough times, move cards > and get to the ones I need. Dealing with hand jam and poor draws > is part of strategy. Players who ignore these potential problems > will be more subject to "bad luck." Sure. I agree with all that. But dealing with what is part of this CCG is not the same thing as saying these things _must_ be part of a CCG. They exist, and we must deal with them, due to design choices made by Richard Garfield. At the time, I'd say he made the easiest, most obvious choice and that's completely understandable. But it wasn't his only choice. >> And I still love the >> V:tES despite this particular foible. But I'm just saying, it >> isn't necessary for a game to be designed in this way and, IMHO, >> it ultimately detracts from the game. > > It seems so integral to the game, I can hardly imagine things > without it. I imagine you can't because you've been playing the game this way for a while and didn't strike you as anything to question. But I obsess about weird things and to me the issue of, "Why do I bother to put three Palla Grandes in my !Toreador deck just so they can turn up in last five cards?" kind of bugs me. Or why should the tradeoff of putting copies of Information Highway or Zillah's Valley even be a question? I agree with James's point that it's a somewhat interesting deckbuilding question but the experience of discarding lumps of dead cards that turn up at times during games as a result isn't terribly interesting. That part is, IMO, the downside of those kinds of trade-offs. > People talk about how v:tes can be a game of rock-paper-scissors > now. Imagine if you could redraw the same 7 card hand every turn. It depends on what alternative you chose. Again, it's a false dichotomy to suggest the only alternative is to allow players to redraw the 7 cards every turn. Anyway, I don't consider rock- paper-scissors to be the dirty word some people seem to. I think it kind of depends on how extreme the situation is. > It would > quickly become apparent whether or not a player has chosen the > correct 7 cards for a particular game. Well, yea, if you went from total randomness to total predictability, that might be so. How about going from totally random to somewhat random? > So one strategy element is more fun than another? Would you like to rate > them in order of mostest funnest to leastest funnest? I'm not sure I understand the sense of your question. It's subjective and everyone has an opinion. But a definite yes on your first question. One strategy element can be a lot more fun than another. Did you think anything that qualifies as a strategy element was always equally enjoyable as every other one? Wouldn't leave much to personal preference, AFAICS. >> For instance, you can't build early >> game, mid-game, and late game strategies into decks to a very >> great extent because of the fear you'll draw cards at the wrong >> time. > > Sure you can. I've played Rachel Brandywine decks with plenty of Dreams > of the Sphinx that can return 3 drawn cards to my library every turn in > hopes of drawing the more immediately useful cards. It's great. Other players have done amazing things with Storage Annex or > ashheap recursion. > Look at some of Ben Peal's twister decks and tell me he doesn't have an > early game, mid game and late game strategy built in. The clause, "to a very great extent" was intended to account for such things. I realize the game contains things that lessen the impact. I don't think it's lessened all that much, however. Your examples are very specific deck archetypes. The vast majority of decks, including many top tier decks, do little or nothing except to the extent that they're built to optimize card flow. >> This limits the kind of cards the designers can reasonably >> bother designing and it limits the effectiveness of the ones they >> do design. > > I think you're wrong there. The design team introduced Convictions in the most recent set and wanted to include a mechanism that > allows players to always be able to get Convictions, despite shuffling. No problem. Well, except that Convictions are a huge pain in the ass for exactly this reason. And possibly imbued may be unbalancingly overpowered, depending on who you ask. I agree that here's an example of a card designed to specifically mitigate this problem. That doesn't mean the central design of the game doesn't limit how cards can be designed, though. For instance, if a designer wanted to create a card that allowed a balanced, moderate advantage to a vampire deck that only made a difference at the beginning of the game, it would be difficult to do. Due to the chance that it wouldn't be drawn until too late, it would be impossible to balance without increasing its advantage from moderate to high. I suppose he could invent another new card type like Convictions that somehow guranteed (or made it highly likely) that you could draw and use it early. But then he'd have to add more rules to the game which I consider to be a bad thing. (More rules -> more complexity -> harder to teach to newer players and keep track of all the minutia and corner cases yourself.) If your point is to say that anything is possible, I suppose that's true. Still, the central design of the game makes certain things a lot harder to do than others. Fred

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:1154981271.0...@n13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Fred Scott wrote: >> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message >> > I think of it more as simply an aspect of card games. All card games. >> >> But the point is, does it always have to be an aspect of every >> single card game? > > Depending on your definition of card game, yes. Well, maybe the difference is that we do disagree on the definition of a card game. Or, perhaps the definition of what I'm terming as being the problem. Your point about striped decks is one way to lessen it. I hadn't considered it but I suppose V:tES's striped decks, that is, the crypt deck being separated from the library deck, already is a mitigation. Thank God (or thank Richard Garfield) that we don't have to draw away at our library decks to find vampires before we can do anything. Being mana starved and mana-geysered were two of the stupidest ways to lose a (Magic) game that I've ever encountered as long as I've played games. > Card games all have this aspect, by nature. OK, I see what you're getting at. If you have cards in a pile, they have to get piled by some means. The two extremes appear to be human ordering and random 1-to-X shuffling. What I meant when I asked if the "aspect" has to exist in every game is whether the 1-to-X random shuffle extreme needs to always be the way to go. Choose your opening hand, making one deck out of multiple decks intended for different periods of the game (Sten's beginning, middle, and end game decks), and all sorts of different rules can bring on a something-in-between effect. One amusing possibility: allow both (or all, in a multiplayer game) to totally order their cards before the start - but then allow cards in the game that permit players to alter other players decks to some extent. If you did it right, there could be some very interesting strategy trade-offs. For instance, the alternative to cards that allowed a player to mess with their opponents decks would be others that advanced their position towards winning. So how many cards should you use of each type? I suspect the result would be a bit of a matrix game and have a very random feel about it - even though nary a card was ever shuffled (contrary to your comment). Even if you do shuffle, how important does it always have to be? Fred

> > One amusing possibility: allow both (or all, in a multiplayer game) > to totally order their cards before the start - but then allow > cards in the game that permit players to alter other players decks > to some extent. Ok, In theory this sounds pretty cool, remove some of the random element from the game. Everyone who has played any card game from uno to V:tes and everything in between has been "screwed by the cards" at some stage. What I don't like about this what it can do to the current strategies of the game. By allowing players to order thier libraries and crypts I can see situations where it will wreck the game, purely because the deck runs exactly the way you want it to. Now is this a bad thing? IMHO, yes it is. Consider a weenie dom powerbleed deck, which for the sake of this, is going first. Turn 1: play Info highway, influence out a 2 cap. Turn 2: play perfectionist on 2 cap and bleed with govern + conditioning, influence out 2 more weenines. Turn 3: Play zilla's valley on your last opening draw minion, bleed with govern + conditioning with 3 weenies, Influence out your high cap power player. My prey has had 2 turns and has lost 20 pool, and probably at best has 6 left from his own transfers, trying to get someone out to stop me. Would you like to be the prey of this style of deck when you can actually order the cards to come out the way you want? Sure, there are ways around this. AI's DI's and SR's all immediatly spring to mind, but by playing them, that nice accelerating master you have in your hand is so much dead weight because you are forced to use your MPA's out of turn to survive the onslaught of bleed actions. Your suggestion of having cards that alter the library may seem like a good way to stop this but honestly dude, all I see is a card that says: Master, shuffle your prey or predators deck, and I see it in everyones opening hand. If you did it right, there could be some very > interesting strategy trade-offs. For instance, the alternative > to cards that allowed a player to mess with their opponents decks > would be others that advanced their position towards winning. So > how many cards should you use of each type? I suspect the result > would be a bit of a matrix game and have a very random feel about > it - even though nary a card was ever shuffled (contrary to your > comment). > You're right, It would be a "Matrix" game, so much so that if you had the time and desire to do it you could work out all the mathematatical variables of each card combination and work out a "uber" deck, turn up to each game, put it on the table, say "I Win" and walk away, actually going through the motions of playing the game would be a waste of time, because there is no random element to the game, it has all been pre-determined. I understand that you are not making the suggestion in a vacuum, you are considering the impact and the ways to work within the new environment. the only problem I see is that you still go back to "mess with your opponents deck", which introduces chaos to an ordered system, the same effect shuffling the deck does. It may be in a smaller scale, but it is still what you are doing. At any rate, find 3 other people and try out the idea, tell us if it works. I'd be curious to know what kind of decks and results you get from such an experement. > Even if you do shuffle, how important does it always have to be? > IMHO, integral to the game

"sutekh_23" <bec...@aapt.net.au> wrote in message news:1155011638.2...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... >> One amusing possibility: allow both (or all, in a multiplayer game) >> to totally order their cards before the start - but then allow >> cards in the game that permit players to alter other players decks >> to some extent. > > Ok, In theory this sounds pretty cool, remove some of the random > element from the game. Everyone who has played any card game from uno > to V:tes and everything in between has been "screwed by the cards" at > some stage. What I don't like about this what it can do to the current > strategies of the game. ... > At any rate, find 3 other people and try out the idea, tell us if it > works. I'd be curious to know what kind of decks and results you get > from such an experement. I think you missed some of the discussion. The proposal was not meant as some sort of optional rule for VtES. It was intended in response to LSJ's assertion that shuffling decks, on some level or other, is an aspect of card games. Here I proposed a thing recognizable as a card game (not "cardchess", et al) yet not involving shuffling the card piles. >> Even if you do shuffle, how important does it always have to be? >> > IMHO, integral to the game Intregral to VtES, yes. I conceded that. Doesn't keep me from bitching and moaning about the issue, however. Or speculating how to build a different card game without it. And, yes. I agree with your assertion that allowing players to mess with their opponents' decks introduces a form of randomness. Matrix games in general clearly have random aspects. They simply force the players to become the randomizers in place of dice or deck shuffles. Still, I find it a more agreeable form of luck for various reasons. Fred

Fred Scott wrote: > "sutekh_23" <bec...@aapt.net.au> wrote in message > news:1155011638.2...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > >> One amusing possibility: allow both (or all, in a multiplayer game) > >> to totally order their cards before the start - but then allow > >> cards in the game that permit players to alter other players decks > >> to some extent. > > > > Ok, In theory this sounds pretty cool, remove some of the random > > element from the game. Everyone who has played any card game from uno > > to V:tes and everything in between has been "screwed by the cards" at > > some stage. What I don't like about this what it can do to the current > > strategies of the game. > ... > > At any rate, find 3 other people and try out the idea, tell us if it > > works. I'd be curious to know what kind of decks and results you get > > from such an experement. > > I think you missed some of the discussion. The proposal was not > meant as some sort of optional rule for VtES. It was intended in > response to LSJ's assertion that shuffling decks, on some level > or other, is an aspect of card games. Here I proposed a thing > recognizable as a card game (not "cardchess", et al) yet not > involving shuffling the card piles. Fair enough point, everyone once thought that card games were all about your standard 52 cards, 4 suit style games. M:TG, V:Tes and others have proven them wrong :) Trying out new dynamics and playstyle is always a good thing, leads to new and interesting games to play. > > >> Even if you do shuffle, how important does it always have to be? > >> > > IMHO, integral to the game > > Intregral to VtES, yes. I conceded that. Doesn't keep me from > bitching and moaning about the issue, however. Or speculating > how to build a different card game without it. > Haha, no not at all. As for the speculating, I was somewhat confused due to the topic on hand, something I should have learnt not to pay too much attention to by now. > And, yes. I agree with your assertion that allowing players to > mess with their opponents' decks introduces a form of randomness. > Matrix games in general clearly have random aspects. They simply > force the players to become the randomizers in place of dice or deck > shuffles. Still, I find it a more agreeable form of luck > for various reasons. Well do I understand your frustrations dude :) Many is the time I've been ousted and its the next draw that would have saved my ass. I can see the argument for less randomization in decks, but when I think about it more, I'm always confronted with the idea that seeing as though we have total control over what goes into our decks, we can directly affect the inherent randomness they contain. Exessive randomization of card choices in deck construction seems to cause most of the problems, if indeed, you have problems. Then again, a 60 card deck with 3-6 different cards sounds pretty boring as well :)

James Coupe wrote: > Ben Peal writes: > >What I've found to be a more significant factor is a mid- to late- > >game situation where you've gained an advantage and want to build on > >it by bringing out another vampire, but you keep drawing copies of > >the key vampire in the deck and not a support vamp. I've only found > >this to be more than a minor nuisance about once or twice, however. > > This is, in fact, one of the points I was making. 4 or 5 copies of > Arika (or 6, or 7, or whatever) means you probably draw Arika. 5/12 is > a 7% chance not to draw, 4/12 is about 14%. <http://groups.google.com/g > roup/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/a8fa1522582007d2> is my point of > reference, for the stats. > > But it doesn't mean you get a nice crypt other than that. The chances > of 3 copies are non-negligible - 34% and 42% for 4 and 5 copies in 12. > That's one game per three-round tournament where you only have one other > vampire to bring out. If you take the chances of 3 or 4 in a 4/12 or > 5/12 deck, they become over 40 and 50% chances. That's not going to be > that easy to work with either, as you have to slow down to get new > vampires out - or maybe spend library resources that you wouldn't > otherwise choose to (Effective Management, Info Highway, or whatever > works for you). I'll certainly acknowledge the possibility that my designs for such decks are taking these problems into account (they'll typically have 2 x Effective Management, and sometimes a breed element to get out support vamps). However, from my own experience, I haven't found the above situations to be much of a problem. Yeah, once every three games I get 3 copies of the key vampire and one support vamp (and my personal experience has been just that), but I really only care about ensuring I get the key vampire, and I'm more than happy to spend 4 transfers and a pool to find another support vamp. Sure, it means I have to wait a turn to get the new vamp out, but if I'm fishing for a new vamp, then I'm almost always ahead or have stablilized my situation defensively, so I don't mind the one-turn (occasionally two-turn) delay. > And, of course, it's entirely possible when forcing Arika out (or > Stanislava, or Matthias, or Tsunda, or any other star vampire) to get > exactly the situation you describe. Again, that situation hasn't shown itself to be more than a minor nuisance to me. > 2 copies of Arika plus a crypt of ordered vampires so you know exactly > what you can get eliminates all of this. It would obviously make those decks better, but I think it would make them only slightly better, and certainly wouldn't push them over the top. At the same time, I certainly don't advocate that the rules be changed such that players can choose their starting crypt draw - the problems with "throw away" vamps to meet restrictions would be plenty bad. I do think that "key vampire" decks are more viable than people might think, and the topic would be great material for an Ash Heap or newsletter article. - Ben Peal