We still got no indepth archetype analisys from ec 2016 but my general feeling is that ban of anthelious really made MMA decks much less annoying, but left them still quite playable.
So I think the way of "small bans" - removing not the "main part of the problem" and collaterally destroying several archetypes and meta, but removing supporting elements of "annoyance" is a workable way to go at the present state of the game.
Comes the 22 year old problem of "dominate is too good".
As was stated earlier, real tournament statistics does not show that it's "broken" (there are quite a lot powerful deck archetipes without dom), but it still is clearly the best discipline.
Problem for the game, as I see it, lies not in the status of "best" by itself - some discipline will be best anyway, but that it is best in both bleed and bleed defence.
There is suggestion flying around to solve this problem by giving bounce to everybody, but I don't think it's a good idea.
Alternative idea is to remove the card, which, I think, moves dom bleeds over the top - said conditioning.
It looks like very small change while we still got govern and deflection running (and threats), but by it we will reduce "bleed level" of action+modifier to 4/5 (dom/DOM) which by now can be achived with many other disciplines or discipline combinations.
So at deckbuilding stage dom will obviously be the first peak if we will need bounce or govern superior, but if we got other plans for a game, than we will not be pressed to still include it as a best possible offence.
Also lovering "max incoming bleed" (outside of obviously quite limited toreadors) for a 1 will be, as I think, good for the game in general - bloating/bleed reduction is presented as alternative way of defence and it will make it more viable, because now, as I think, it works not so good.
What do you think?
NC Russia
> Non-existant user wrote:
> Conditioning is badly needed as the only +2 bleed that does not require a superior discipline.
>
Govern, Mind Rape, Slautering the herd, Legal manipulations, Media Influence, Public Trust, Madman's Quil, Loss, Monkey Wrench...
NC Russia
> elotar wrote:
> As was stated earlier, real tournament statistics does not show that it's "broken" (there are quite a lot powerful deck archetipes without dom), but it still is clearly the best discipline.
>
I agree that tournament statistics don't tell us anything, and the reason why is that the statistics don't factor in player behavior. There's no real stakes to winning a tournament other than bragging rights and player rankings, and winning without dominate is more "prestigious" among players than wining with. Thus, the non-dominate archetypes become more competitive because people intentionally bring decks to tournaments without the dominate "crutch." Now, if a tournament had a $1 million USD cash prize, everybody would play dominate. I'm convinced that any questionable strategy with a dominate module can compete with any decent strategy without dominate.
> Problem for the game, as I see it, lies not in the status of "best" by itself - some discipline will be best anyway, but that it is best in both bleed and bleed defence.
>
> There is suggestion flying around to solve this problem by giving bounce to everybody, but I don't think it's a good idea.
>
> Alternative idea is to remove the card, which, I think, moves dom bleeds over the top - said conditioning.
>
> It looks like very small change while we still got govern and deflection running (and threats), but by it we will reduce "bleed level" of action+modifier to 4/5 (dom/DOM) which by now can be achived with many other disciplines or discipline combinations.
>
> So at deckbuilding stage dom will obviously be the first peak if we will need bounce or govern superior, but if we got other plans for a game, than we will not be pressed to still include it as a best possible offence.
>
> Also lovering "max incoming bleed" (outside of obviously quite limited toreadors) for a 1 will be, as I think, good for the game in general - bloating/bleed reduction is presented as alternative way of defence and it will make it more viable, because now, as I think, it works not so good.
>
> What do you think?
>
I think that any move in a direction where the ability to remove pool is weakened will have the unintended effect of lengthening the game. And lengthening the game, I feel, is a bad idea. That's why I would favor introducing disciplineless bounce--perhaps also a bad idea for different reasons--over something like banning Conditioning.
Conditioning is not the problem, it's Govern the unaligned and deflection that makes Dominate superior to every other discipline. If you remove Govern, I think you will see a lot less dominate decks.
In my opinion Govern the unaligned is the best card in the game, it's so versatile. Its offensive, its defensive and it's crypt acceleration, what more do you need from one card.
If any dominate card has to go its Govern.
National Coordinator of Sweden
> Kimpan wrote:
> If you remove Govern, I think you will see a lot less dominate decks.
>
I think you've missed the part where I was talking about small changes. Removing govern will shake the game unpredictably and I'm not shure, that result will be positive.
NC Russia
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
> I think that any move in a direction where the ability to remove pool is weakened will have the unintended effect of lengthening the game.
>
It not works that way - VtES is not a game of playing all you +bleeds as fast as you can, so the game will be longer if the the bonuses will be lower.
Most time consuming activity is table talk and how it will change I think nobody can really predict.
NC Russia
> elotar wrote:
>
> > Non-existant user wrote:
> > Conditioning is badly needed as the only +2 bleed that does not require a superior discipline.
> >
> Govern, Mind Rape, Slautering the herd, Legal manipulations, Media Influence, Public Trust, Madman's Quil, Loss, Monkey Wrench...
>
I think he meant modifiers.
NC Belarus
> Kimpan wrote:
> Conditioning is not the problem, it's Govern the unaligned and deflection that makes Dominate superior to every other discipline. If you remove Govern, I think you will see a lot less dominate decks.
>
> In my opinion Govern the unaligned is the best card in the game, it's so versatile. Its offensive, its defensive and it's crypt acceleration, what more do you need from one card.
>
> If any dominate card has to go its Govern.
>
The two cards that make dominate so good are govern and deflection.
The thing that has no sense in terms of lore is that a 3-cap can bounce an 11-cap on a bleed. Dominate use on other vamps should depend on capacity.
Anyway, I like it as it is.
> Exposer wrote:
> I think he meant modifiers.
>
> elotar wrote:
> ...Monkey Wrench...
>
And I don't think he means modifiers, cause idea that action modifier of +2 bleed is
> Non-existant user wrote:
> badly needed
>
can not be accepted without some explanation.
NC Russia
> cordovader wrote:
> The thing that has no sense in terms of lore is that a 3-cap can bounce an 11-cap on a bleed.
>
I think, bounce is very important for a game right now, so removing it is not so great idea.
As a lore perspective it can be explaned like not influensing the mind of inner circle, but "rewriting" the minds of mortals ets. who are represented by pool counters, so they are mistaken by bleeder as a pawns of wrong metusela.
NC Russia
I'll answer in 2 words : NO, THANKS.
First reason is : I hate bans
2nd is : I even more hate bans asked by whiners (remember PTO ? )
3rd is : Dominate is strong, so what ? Deal with it !!
Imbued are more resilient and still part of the game.
Kindred Spirits enables you to bleed ANYwhere and earn pool, still part of the game.
Parity Shift moves 10 pool (at best) still part, etc.
No need for more bans, you (Floppy) can make erratas or change the rules but please stop banning cards. And if you do, don't do it because of players whining but because you truly believe the card is a problem.
Pentex Board of Directors
Prince of Oye Plage
Alastor Grand Nord
a few points.
1. Too much bleed is not the problem of dominate. I have seem massive bleeds in other disiplines as well and one of the disciplines to be the king at bleeding.
2. Banning conditioning would be a solve the problem if that was your goal. It has alternatives for bleed modifiers. And they are currently not tier 1, but they would be if conditioning was not around.
3. I am not a big fan of banning cards. Although I agree on every ban decision so far.
4. Banning only the deflection would make the game much more intresting (from a deck construction standpoint). Dominate has the (I agree on you) strongest bleed in the game, but also has the best bleed defense (Not tapping at superior is quite unique and also usefull defensively at inferior is also quite unique) which is also offense. If you want to call a ban on a dominate card please say deflection.
5. i should not drink beer and write in english at the same time.
Jeroen
Have a cold long night,
Jeroen van Oort
Dutch National Coördinator
All the bans proposed are staple cards from day 1 of the game. Start messing with fundamentals and you'll must likely just end up with damaged product and pissed of players.
No Sir, I don't like it!
You REALLY seem to have a big agenda nowadays to ban cards left and right.
So far I heard very few people agreeing with you. So I kinda think you are a very small minority. And one that thinks if it is persistent and vocal enough, something might happen.
Finnish Politics!
> Lönkka wrote:
> All the bans proposed are staple cards from day 1 of the game. Start messing with fundamentals and you'll must likely just end up with damaged product and pissed of players.
>
It this thread there are two kind of arguments:
1) banning of conditioning will not achieve anything, we need to ban more dominate cards
2) banning of conditioning will change the game significantly
I think they are not really working together.
> Lönkka wrote:
> You REALLY seem to have a big agenda nowadays to ban cards left and right.
>
Obviously. I've mentioned already, that I'm convienced that no more than 1500 cards will be in the game when it returns to print. And by now we we got only three "futures":
1) we (VEKN) will gradually change the game to more acceptable form (not only in size of the cardpool, but also rules presentation, design e t.s.) and it may return to print as continuation of the present game.
2) The game will be rebooted like how it was made by FFG with android or new GoT with significant changes, dumded down, several hundred cards at all and no continuation.
3) The game dies.
So I'm fighting for the brightest future for us all
> Lönkka wrote:
> So I kinda think you are a very small minority.
>
Not really. There are wery big number of players, who from the very beginning think that much more cards from dom must be banned. Also there are much bigger group who are disagreeing with the present state of VtES - guys who stopped playing or even don't start in the first place. I think we outnomber "you" like 100 to 1 or even a degree more
NC Russia
My main argument for not banning Conditioning: It ends games. This game needs more cards that ousts people, not fewer.
More reasonable ideas for weakening Dominate would be to errata Deflection to only work on younger vamps, or Govern the Unaligned to just move blood from vamp to uncontrolled, not creating blood from blood bank. (Just examples, EXAMPLES, of what could be done.)
"My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."
Personally, I find it hard to point the finger at one specific card - Govern as the strongest bleed action in the game, Deflection as some of the strongest defence in the game, and Conditioning as a tip-top bleed modifier (though Threats has its uses too, for blood management). Most of the issues I have with Dominate are that it has extremely good synergy in one discipline - the three of those, plus also options like Seduction and Bonding to get bleeds through.(*) Dementation is also a very good bleeding discipline - in a slightly different way, with Kindred Spirits - but doesn't have all that in one, and generally has to branch out into Auspex for bounce, if it wants it.
My preference would be for tech that helped out weaker strategies and cramped Dominate a bit. Not crushing it, not killing it, but hampering it, giving it more to think about, more decisions to make, more compromises to consider.
(*) Plus the power of a well-timed Mind Rape, though obviously that requires bigger vampires, generally speaking.
I'd note that what makes bounce more powerful is better bleed. Conditioning and Govern both make Deflection better than if they didn't exist.
Put me in the camp of banning Conditioning or, if it's a more friendly way to put it, retiring it. Govern, too. I have no idea why people have a problem with Deflection, which makes the game playable, but, whatever.
Also, I'd retire another 100 or more cards, perhaps. Bunch of masters along with events and some equipment and one or more allies and ...
Having a manageable card pool is not a bad thing. But, one of the key reasons for controlling card pool size - preventing stagnation - is more why. V:TES has never seen as much change in top level strategies as other CCGs. I also lament how many cards I either used to see played or that are playable that just don't make the cut in decks because they are so vastly inferior when slotting out decks than other plays; this is most noticeable with master cards. It's even to the point where it can be hard to justify playing with WWEF in decks, where it was the single most commonly played card once upon a time.
Traveller Card Game
> Ashur wrote:
> My main argument for not banning Conditioning: It ends games.
>
I don't think this argument is valid any more - after banning of Anthelious I see no timing problems outside of overly long discussions.
NC Russia
> ICL wrote:
> I have no idea why people have a problem with Deflection, which makes the game playable, but, whatever.
>
From my point of view, I don't have a problem with Deflection itself, just:
a) top-notch offence and top-notch defence in the same discipline is a bit much. Imagine a parallel universe in which V:TES had been designed so that things were split into two different disciplines (say, good +bleed in Presence, good bounce in Dominate), and then a mono-discipline weenie deck could do one or the other, not both, which would seem like a reasonable trade-off. Mix some of both in, play bigger vampires etc.
b) Deflection being so totemic that it draws decks towards playing it, like a siren on the rocks. But that's not an objection to Deflection per se, so much as defensive options in other disciplines/clans/traits being a bit pap.
Removing Govern, Conditioning or Deflection would lead to more Scouting Missions, Threats and Redirections.
Dominate would lose some hosing power, but would it make it less predominant? We're only conjecturing here about the consequences.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Ankha wrote:
> Removing Govern, Conditioning or Deflection would lead to more Scouting Missions, Threats and Redirections.
> Dominate would lose some hosing power, but would it make it less predominant? We're only conjecturing here about the consequences.
>
While I´m not totally against this (especially in a new game format), this would seriously hamper MANY decks, especially toolboxy ones like Stickmen. You need that extra power to be able to oust when you´re deck is not focused. So doing this will likely result in more focused decks, less toolboxes, and that is not great IMHO.
"My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."
> Ashur wrote:
> Stickmen.
>
Switching Conditioning for Threats saves you 6 blood. So you can remove some defence (no conditioning from your predator is a factor also) and add more offence.
NC Russia
> elotar wrote:
>
Switching Conditioning for Threats saves you 6 blood. So you can remove some defence (no conditioning from your predator is a factor also) and add more offence.[/quote]So why on earth are majority of decks using Conditioning then?
I have no problems having cards in VTES that end games on time.
Conditioning, as well as Deflection and Govern do just that.
Finnish Politics!
> elotar wrote:
> Switching Conditioning for Threats saves you 6 blood. So you can remove some defence (no conditioning from your predator is a factor also) and add more offence.
>
If you play regulary in a highly competitive environment you should know switching Conditionings for Threats is NOT GOOD.
"My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."
> Ashur wrote:
> switching Conditionings for Threats is NOT GOOD.
>
Obviously the deck will became weaker. Weenie dominate will be, suddenly, weaker too!
If Conditioning can be switched by other card without losing anything, than there will be no point in banning it.
But I think that Stickmen still will be quite playable.
NC Russia
> Lönkka wrote:
> I have no problems having cards in VTES that end games on time.
> Conditioning, as well as Deflection and Govern do just that.
>
> elotar wrote:
>
> > Ashur wrote:
> > My main argument for not banning Conditioning: It ends games.
> >
> I don't think this argument is valid any more - after banning of Anthelious I see no timing problems outside of overly long discussions.
>
NC Russia
> elotar wrote:
> I don't think this argument is valid any more - after banning of Anthelious I see no timing problems outside of overly long discussions.
>
[/quote]
I think timeouts are still rathr big an issue.
How many tables(/games) were played in the EC?
How many of those timeouted?
Finnish Politics!
> Lönkka wrote:
>
> > elotar wrote:
> > I don't think this argument is valid any more - after banning of Anthelious I see no timing problems outside of overly long discussions.
> >
I think timeouts are still rathr big an issue.
How many tables(/games) were played in the EC?
How many of those timeouted?[/quote]
As I understand:
7/24(-?) Legendary
8/54 day 1
11/24 day 2
Yea, there was some timeouts day 2, but I'm pretty sure that it's not because the lack of bleed modifiers
I personally got one table near time limiit, but just because of 5 guys with votes, one guy activly stalling and generally some stupid things happening like unjustified cros-table rushes.
NC Russia
> elotar wrote:
> As I understand:
> 7/24(-?) Legendary
> 8/54 day 1
> 11/24 day 2
>
Not that bad.
Especially Day 1 seems to have worked quite well.
Finnish Politics!
> Lönkka wrote:
>
> > elotar wrote:
> > As I understand:
> > 7/24(-?) Legendary
> > 8/54 day 1
> > 11/24 day 2
> >
> Not that bad.
> Especially Day 1 seems to have worked quite well.
>
Yes, isn´t this significantly better than before?
"My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."
If you want less time outs, then remove the incentive to stay in a game. Remove the 0.5 vp reward for staying alive, and it will in the long run result in less time outs. The reduction from 1vp to 0.5 vp was an improvement. But this should be a diffrent topic.
Sure, conditioning is a bigger looming threat then other modifiers, but I disagree that this "game ender" is vital. Oh I am against the ban, but please continue such discussions. I am very intressted in the way you think about these things.
gr,
Jeroen
Have a cold long night,
Jeroen van Oort
Dutch National Coördinator
> self wrote:
>
> > elotar wrote:
> > As I understand:
> > 7/24(-?) Legendary
> > 8/54 day 1
> > 11/24 day 2
> >
> why did the rate of table timeouts nearly triple on day two?
>
I would say less proportion of vote/bleed decks (from ~70% on day 1 to ~40% on day 2) and "better" players.
Better players means that the table will less likely allow VPs go after the 1st one and harder negotiations (not necessarily stalling).
In my 2nd round there were 4 wall decks in the same table. The one that made the table move a little bit was me, but it ended in time limit anyway.
Not seeing the validity of arguments against timeouts as arguments for Conditioning. The two really have nothing to do with each other, where the argument for Conditioning seems far more of an argument "don't change what exists".
Want to reduce timeouts, eliminate voting. It's not just the possibility for extended negotiations, it's that voting is a great way to bloat, and voting is a great way to prevent someone from ousting someone else through Banishment, Con Boon, or whatever.
Want +2/+3 bleed in the game?
Blood Annihilation
Action Modifier
Cost: 1b
<qui> or <tha>: +2 bleed, don't cheese more bleed after playing this card.
<QUI> or <THA>: +3 bleed, sure go ahead and drop something else to really murder someone.
No, adding +bleed to Qui doesn't matter, so the real card would be more like:
Too Slow
Action Modifier
Cost: 1b
You cannot play another action modifier to increase this bleed amount.
<cel>: +2 bleed.
<CEL>: +3 bleed.
Can just errata Conditioning to require a different discipline, instead, of course.
However, my argument has nothing to do with timeouts as timeouts are a function of metagame, both in terms of deck construction and play style, and not whether Conditioning exists. I don't want Conditioning, Aire of Elation, or Foreshadowing Destruction in the game. I could see a capacity restricted discipline card or title requiring card (hey, Archbishop/Priscus/Cardinal, have a +2 bleed card, burn a blood for +3 bleed), but one grows weary of take 3-6 over and over again because it's so ridiculously easy.
Does this just make Dem that much better? Sure. That's why I don't bother calling for retiring one card in the game but retiring enough cards to remake the environment, an environment with less bloat ability, with less intercept ... and less stealth, etc.
Traveller Card Game
so here's an idea.
Introduce the grouping rule for Library cards (in b4 TEH GROOPING IS le suXX0r5). Have it work the same as for the library as it does for the crypt.
Take ... Scouting Mission and Govern: they go in group 1. The modifiers go in group 2. The redirects go in group three. nothing actually changes aside from what card pool they exist in. I mean you can hedge things so that like... all of the little cards go in group 2, and govern and conditioning go in 1, and deflection goes in group 3.
Moved my contribution to a seperate thread: www.vekn.net/forum/card-balance-strategy-discussion/75401-is-it-time-to-introduce-a-card-limit#79442
-1 Strength
> GreyB wrote:
> Perhaps it's time to restrict individual cards to max 4 each in a library/crypt.
>
Look, just no. 4CL is a fundamentally awful idea, because it empowers stealth-bleed (which has a plethora of alternatives), while hurting dozens of other strategies because they don't have alternatives, have been designed without alternatives, and have been intended to work without alternatives.
Bloodline disciplines with restricted card sets were designed knowing that their actions, modifiers, reactions etc. can be stacked up in decks. Anarch three-ways were designed knowing the same. The Red Question, clearly designed to make Anarchs much more playable, was designed knowing that you could toss a load into a deck to kick start the deck if you wanted. Camarilla vote decks get 4 extra copies of Parity Shift in a deck for pool destruction, and non-Camarilla vote decks don't get to compensate for that by playing more copies of Kine Resources Contested. Dominate based decks have the option of Deflection, Redirection, and Murmur, while Auspex decks can only play Telepathic Misdirection.
It has been a terrible idea every time it's been suggested since 1994, and will continue to be so.
> GreyB wrote:
> Stuff that breaks with a card limit like Orun/Aye and suchlike just need to be designed away in new sets.
>
Since the game has been getting roughly 20-25 library cards a year, it would take an inordinate amount of time to fix all the problems that are introduced. Of course, since stealth-bleed dominating the game is the result that's happened in more or less any group that's played 4CL - except where they then exert social pressure on people to not play strong decks! - it's likely the game wouldn't last long enough to fix the swathes of problems introduced.
It really is a terrible, terrible, terrible, terrible idea.
> ICL wrote:
> ...Aire of Elation...
>
I you sure that it's in the same basket, as conditioning?
I was usually evaluating a toreador restriction as a fine one - limited weenie potential, stealth and block denial.
> ICL wrote:
> ...retiring enough cards to remake the environment, an environment with less bloat ability, with less intercept ...
>
Generally a good idea, but I'm struggling in finding ways to do it practically - banning many cards at ones makes too much "hatred".
NC Russia
By the way, story of bans in MTG modern - format, which is actually pretty close to VtES in structure and cardpool.
magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/arcana/brief-history-modern-banned-list-2015-02-03
Notice the different reasoning of bans.
NC Russia
Continuing of MTG story:
at 9-th of january 3 cards was banned from standard:
magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/news/january-9-2017-banned-and-restricted-announcement-2017-01-09
In MTG standard there are, I think, like ~100 playable cards (most cards in MTG are totally useless for constracted), so it's really removal of a significant part of available pool.
Interesting part in he announcement is the "opening" of the new window for a bannings - from 4 times per year to 8(!) times.
NC Russia
Dominate is so good because at basic dom, you can bolt on 3 bleeds and bounce. At DOM you get bleeds for 3-4, bounce without tapping and pool/influence.
Conditioning is not the problem, it can be reduced/bounced/archoned. Even govern isn't the problem, as it can be blocked. Having all three though...that's pretty amazing.
I would eye deflection first as you don't tap for it and it isn't age based, which is a strong element to dominate, as shown in govern and redirection. However banning deflection would kill one of my favorite combos (rats warning/deflection) which makes me sad, but I could live with it.
> elotar wrote:
> In MTG standard there are, I think, like ~100 playable cards (most cards in MTG are totally useless for constracted)
>
Yes, in Standard yes. Many cards that are printed are meant to only be useful in Limited formats. What was you´re point again?
"My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."
There are so many ways to cancel, deflect or block a bleed action. If you aren't planning on doing that in some capacity, you are on the losing end of the exchange, that's for sure.
There are plenty of other ways to pop large bleeds on people.
I mean, Archon Investigation destroys a vampire outright. People aren't stacking their decks to deal with problems that have, as pointed out, existed for 20 years.
Threadomancy, even - a far graver crime in the kindred world than the former.
Please refrain from posting on ages old topics if you don't have something extremely important to add to that specific topic.
"Oh, to the Hades with the manners! He's a complete bastard, and calling him that insults bastards everywhere!"
-Nalia De-Arnise
garourimgazette.wordpress.com/
www.vekn.net/forum-guidelines