As mentioned in the other thread, I would like to try and come up with
"the perfect" 2 player format for vtes. I do not believe that the
current ones (the non official ones) are fully up to the task, so I
hope we can find something else.
The first part seems to be to identify what is wrong with it, so I
wanted to try and do that here.
It seems that we established that a 2 player game using the normal
rules set, is not fun. So my question is, "What prevents a 2 player
game using the normal format from being fun?".
(summarized from the other thread)
- Some stable cards are useless.
- Some cards with "X players" in the effect become too weak.
- Cards that a passed on to predator or prey can break the game.
- Certain deck types (especially weenie decks) are too strong, as
there are no other players to help you against them.
- Having the Edge is too strong, and it becomes too easy to hold on to
it.
What else is there?
[ quoted text not captured ]> What else is there?
Meaningful interaction can be non-existent.
i.e. One player is playing a vote deck, the other has no titles so all
votes called, pass.
i.e. One player is playing stealth bleed, the other has no intercept,
so all bleeds succeed.
i.e. One player is playing rush combat, the other has little/no combat
defense, so all minions are torporized.
The Rock-Paper-Scissors interaction of the decks types has too many
chances to miss completely.
With the 4-5 player game, you can make up for lack of votes with other
voters on the table, you can bounce those bleeds you can't block, you
can get rescued cross table, etc.
Nikolaj "Lord of the Betrayers" Wendt wrote:
[ quoted text not captured ]
Usually combat decks are way too strong too. As prey and pred are the same
they can win the game by destroying all the opponent's minion, which usually
is way too hard. So I'd say most other concepts are doomed to fail, no
matter how many S:CE or even Obedience they pack (there will always be a way
around it, if only sheer number).
Orpheus
Nikolaj "Lord of the Betrayers" Wendt wrote:
[ quoted text not captured ]
I would dispute that any of these, except maybe the weenie problem, are the
roots of why 2p is not fun.
2p is not fun because:
- Lack of multiple players (tabletalk and dealmaking are useless in 2p)
And then, at a distant second:
- Intercept combat is too strong (since it takes a strong defensive archetype
and turns it into a very strong offense).
- Weenie bleed (or weenie vote perhaps) is too strong, since it no longer has to
worry about how to get the second VP.
Staples being useless or weaker? Not so much an issue. Who's going to shed a
tear over Deflection? Or KRC? Indeed, the call to variety may make the game more
fun, not less.
Millicent may be quite unfun, yes. But I'd file that as a subnote to intercept
combat above.
I don't see the Edge as unfun at all. Even when intercept combat is around, the
Edge is not the issue.
"Nikolaj \"Lord of the Betrayers\" Wendt" <nikola...@gmail.com> wrote:
> - Certain deck types (especially weenie decks) are too strong, as
> there are no other players to help you against them.
Scourge of the Enochians is quite strong in 2-player...
On Sep 14, 12:25 pm, Jozxyqk <jfeue...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote:
> "Nikolaj \"Lord of the Betrayers\" Wendt" <nikolajwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > - Certain deck types (especially weenie decks) are too strong, as
> > there are no other players to help you against them.
>
> Scourge of the Enochians is quite strong in 2-player...
Having played *a lot* of 2 player, I disagree about the edge. When we
play 2 player, we don't collect pool for holding the edge, and I think
it improves the games. We also have all bleed bounce cards cancel the
bleed, since no one is that interested in building decks explicitly
for 2 player games. Sure, the rock paper scissors issue is more
pronounced (and tends to make for quick games), but 2 player is still
a good way to test out a deck in terms of cardflow, and to improve
play speed and decision making. It would be a mistake to think that
a deck that does well in 2 player is automatically going to excel in 4
or 5 player, but I don't think that is such a big deal.
Another thing to remember is that the choice is generally not "2
player VTES or 4 player VTES?", it is generally "2 player VTES or no
VTES?". It is the second question that explains my love of 2 player
games.
-dc
LSJ wrote:
> Nikolaj "Lord of the Betrayers" Wendt wrote:>> As mentioned in the other thread, I would like to try and come up
>> with "the perfect" 2 player format for vtes. I do not believe that
>> the current ones (the non official ones) are fully up to the task,
>> so I hope we can find something else.
>>
>> The first part seems to be to identify what is wrong with it, so I
>> wanted to try and do that here.
>>
>> It seems that we established that a 2 player game using the normal
>> rules set, is not fun. So my question is, "What prevents a 2 player
>> game using the normal format from being fun?".
>>
>> (summarized from the other thread)
>>
>> - Some stable cards are useless.
>> - Some cards with "X players" in the effect become too weak.
>> - Cards that a passed on to predator or prey can break the game.
>> - Certain deck types (especially weenie decks) are too strong, as
>> there are no other players to help you against them.
>> - Having the Edge is too strong, and it becomes too easy to hold on
>> to it.>
> I would dispute that any of these, except maybe the weenie problem,
> are the roots of why 2p is not fun.
You'd dispute that Brainwash isn't too strong in 2p? Interesting. :)
Unless that would be part of your 'intercept' issue, which I snipped.
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/
Please buy my cards! http://shop.ebay.com/kjmergen/m.html
On Sep 14, 9:38 am, quickbeam <dcloo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Having played *a lot* of 2 player, I disagree about the edge. When we
> play 2 player, we don't collect pool for holding the edge, and I think
> it improves the games. We also have all bleed bounce cards cancel the
> bleed, since no one is that interested in building decks explicitly
> for 2 player games.
>
>> -dc
These two rules seem like a quick and easy way to a 2-player variant.
On 14 Sep., 17:39, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> Nikolaj "Lord of the Betrayers" Wendt wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > As mentioned in the other thread, I would like to try and come up with
> > "the perfect" 2 player format for vtes. I do not believe that the
> > current ones (the non official ones) are fully up to the task, so I
> > hope we can find something else.
>
> > The first part seems to be to identify what is wrong with it, so I
> > wanted to try and do that here.
>
> > It seems that we established that a 2 player game using the normal
> > rules set, is not fun. So my question is, "What prevents a 2 player
> > game using the normal format from being fun?".
>
> > (summarized from the other thread)
>
> > - Some stable cards are useless.
> > - Some cards with "X players" in the effect become too weak.
> > - Cards that a passed on to predator or prey can break the game.
> > - Certain deck types (especially weenie decks) are too strong, as
> > there are no other players to help you against them.
> > - Having the Edge is too strong, and it becomes too easy to hold on to
> > it.
>
> I would dispute that any of these, except maybe the weenie problem, are the
> roots of why 2p is not fun.
>
> 2p is not fun because:
>
> - Lack of multiple players (tabletalk and dealmaking are useless in 2p)
I see your point, but since Silence of Death has been a popular format
at all the events I have tried it, and since some people play withoug
much tabletalk and dealmaking, I actually think it should be "less
players to interact with".
And that it makes the game too simple.
>
> And then, at a distant second:
>
> - Intercept combat is too strong (since it takes a strong defensive archetype
> and turns it into a very strong offense).
> - Weenie bleed (or weenie vote perhaps) is too strong, since it no longer has to
> worry about how to get the second VP.
Agree with both. Basically all deck archetypes that are good at
hampering one player, will be at an advantage as there only IS one
other player. Intercept, weenie rush, weenie bleed are good exmaples.
>
> Staples being useless or weaker? Not so much an issue. Who's going to shed a
> tear over Deflection? Or KRC? Indeed, the call to variety may make the game more
> fun, not less.
>
> Millicent may be quite unfun, yes. But I'd file that as a subnote to intercept
> combat above.
>
> I don't see the Edge as unfun at all. Even when intercept combat is around, the> Edge is not the issue.- Skjul tekst i anførselstegn -
>
> - Vis tekst i anførselstegn -
I still believe the edge is an issue. In the 2 player games I have
played, we ended up playing alot more turns than you would normally do
for a 5 player game, so if you can hold on to the edge you can
potentially get so much more.
On top of that there are fewer posibilities to lose the edge or
otherwise be hurt between your untap phases (no one is deflected to
you and make you lose the edge for instance) as there is only 1 player
as opposed to 4.
On 14 Sep., 17:05, "Nikolaj \"Lord of the Betrayers\" Wendt"
[ quoted text not captured ]
I cant find a way to edit or update a previous post. If there is one,
please let me know. Otherwise, I have added some of the comments
people posted below:
- Some stable cards are useless.
- Some cards with "X players" in the effect become too weak.
- Cards that a passed on to predator or prey can break the game.
- Certain deck types (especially weenie decks) are too strong, as
there are no other players to help you against them.
- Having the Edge is too strong, and it becomes too easy to hold on
to
it.
- Lack of interaction based on the two deck types can make the game
boring.
- Rock-Paper-Scissor can screw you over more so than in a normal game.
- Combat decks, or decks that target minions are too strong, as they
only have to focus on "half" as many minions as usually.
- Lack of player-player interaction makes the game too simple and
boring compared to a 5 player game.
Any other problems that we are missing?
On Sep 15, 7:57 am, "Nikolaj \"Lord of the Betrayers\" Wendt"
> I cant find a way to edit or update a previous post. If there is one,
> please let me know. Otherwise, I have added some of the comments
> people posted below:
There is not. Usenet doesn't work like that. Feel free to add new
posts as needed. Threaded newsreading makes that work fine.
> - Some stable cards are useless.
Well, not completely--yeah, Con Ag is not great, but people don't tend
to use too many of those anyway. Do you have other examples? I mean,
yeah, Parity Shift is much less good, but still, a 4 pool swing is
good.
> - Some cards with "X players" in the effect become too weak.
Again, Parity Shift is still good. Con Ag, not so much, but how many
is someone using?
> - Cards that a passed on to predator or prey can break the game.
Well, maybe? Mostly, they go back and forth. I don't know if both of
you having them all the time is any more of a game breaker--Millicent
Smith, say, means someone gets a weeine burned at some point. And it
might be you (i.e. the person who played it)
> - Certain deck types (especially weenie decks) are too strong, as
> there are no other players to help you against them.
I think combat decks are the real issue here--you just kill all the
other guy's minions and win. Not having to deal with 2 players, and
not having to reap the consequences of back outsing your predator
really make life easy for Rush.
> - Having the Edge is too strong, and it becomes too easy to hold on
> to it.
That is easy to fix by saying "you don't get 1 pool for keeping the
edge" or something. Maybe "put a counter on the edge if you controll
it during your untap phase. You may remove 3 counters from the edge to
gain a pool during your untap phase."
> - Lack of interaction based on the two deck types can make the game> boring. (and lack of multiple players)
I think of all the issues involved here, this is the least important
one. I mean, yeah, 2 player VTES would certainly lack all of the multi
player entertainment from regular VTES, but I suspect that the whole
point of trying to build a 2 player variant is for one of the two
following situations:
A) You have exactly 2 players and want to play some VTES, in which
case, yeah, it is more boring than 5 player VTES but probably much
less boring than no VTES.
B) You want to use 2 player as a variant event at a convention or for
teaching people the rules of the game. In which case it being less
dynamic than regular VTES is irrelevant, as that is the whole point.
> - Rock-Paper-Scissor can screw you over more so than in a normal game.
> - Combat decks, or decks that target minions are too strong, as they
> only have to focus on "half" as many minions as usually.
Completely true. I suspect that some targeted rules tweaks could help
this. Not that I can think of any off hand, but still.
-Peter
Peter D Bakija wrote:
>> - Some stable cards are useless.>
> Well, not completely--yeah, Con Ag is not great, but people don't tend
> to use too many of those anyway. Do you have other examples? I mean,
> yeah, Parity Shift is much less good, but still, a 4 pool swing is
> good.
Deflection.
>> - Cards that a passed on to predator or prey can break the game.>
> Well, maybe? Mostly, they go back and forth. I don't know if both of
> you having them all the time is any more of a game breaker--Millicent
> Smith, say, means someone gets a weeine burned at some point. And it
> might be you (i.e. the person who played it)
Unless neither player has weenies and the game stalls as no one can risk taking
an action (and the Edge is uncontrolled).
On 15 Sep., 14:21, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote:
> On Sep 15, 7:57 am, "Nikolaj \"Lord of the Betrayers\" Wendt"> > - Having the Edge is too strong, and it becomes too easy to hold on> > to it.
>
> That is easy to fix by saying "you don't get 1 pool for keeping the
> edge" or something. Maybe "put a counter on the edge if you controll
> it during your untap phase. You may remove 3 counters from the edge to
> gain a pool during your untap phase."
I already liked Rubens proposal: Burn the edge to get a pool.
That way you have to act to regain it.
-Alf
On Sep 15, 9:16 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> Deflection.
Oh, heh. Duh. Yeah, that.
> Unless neither player has weenies and the game stalls as no one can risk taking
> an action (and the Edge is uncontrolled).
Well, someone has to do something at some point. I mean, regular games
can freeze in a total stalemate too, if no one wants to risk
something.
-Peter
[ quoted text not captured ]
That doesn't really change anything. Stalemates are undesirable in
regular games as well. The specific issue with Millicent in two player
games is that it increases the likelihood of stalemates to an
unreasonable level. And I wouldn't count sacrificing an important
minion and consequently losing the game as a real solution to a
stalemate.
"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message
news:8b4c01ce-2ac2-4f06...@q14g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 15, 9:16 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> > Unless neither player has weenies and the game stalls as no one can risk taking
> > an action (and the Edge is uncontrolled).
>
> Well, someone has to do something at some point.
Um, no - they don't. Not if the net affect of "doing something" is to make
yourself less likely to win. The problem, in a situation like that, is that
each player's latitude for action encompasses only two choices: continue the
status quo or to gratiously allow their opponent to win (or at least to gain
a significant advantage).
> I mean, regular games can freeze in a total stalemate too, if no one wants
> to risk something.
And, indeed, some regular games freeze into total stalemates for the same
reason - because it doesn't make sense for anyone to risk anything.
Fred