I just read parts of the dasrkness unveiled book and have some
complants that I hope Tom will address. Quality control is essential
to any good product and unless your company is in for a short term
quick buck situation is essential to keeping customers.
In games this comes from solid playtesting by people who understand
the game and have a similar attitude towards it as most of your
customer base. This requires some marketing knowledge as well.
That is the biggest complaint I see here and elsewhere about this game
and WoTC. People no longer trust this company to provide a high
quality product with consistency, they still trust Garfield and I
expect Netrunner to do well but once the game leaves his hands it
becomes in doubt.
I do not want to bash the company, I just want it to thrive and
provide me with a good product. I understood you helped Steve Jackson
Games with thier entry into the card market, see if they have useful
advice you can apply towards quality control and editing.
Darkness Unveiled has commentry about the value of cards that is over
estimating thier utility in many cases. Now one persons wallpaper is
anothers key card but this is too many cards in one book where the
example is misleading, especially to a newbie.
More concrete (and what prompted this note tonight) is a few card
descriptions in the Nos section.
(Just in looking for the page I found a comment that Blood rage/fury
are especially effective when playing Basilia!?) Now it might be nice
and helpful to give her the Taum to do this but I wouldn't consider it
especially effective or something in the basic description. More of a
theme deck. If she wants to prevent damage from a weapon just use
canine hordes.
Grendal (P92)
Special Ability: While Grendal is in your active region, you can look
at the top vampire in your crypt. This lets you place that vampire in
your inactive region without having to forfeit your transfers and burn
one pool.
*******So was this a ruling/interpertation I missed?
Even if it was, (and it would help my Betrayer deck nicely) this is an
example of poor editing in that the card disagrees and if its errata
or a change it should have been mentioned explicitly.
Next example
Patagia (p93)
Only action card in the game that requires you to have a ready vampire
from a specific clan before you can play it.
***I would let that careless statement slip by on its own but mention
it here to again stress good editing by people who know the game.
It says that this card gives the Nos one optional maneuver each combat
phase for the remainder of the game. Now comparing it to IR goggles
which is more common, cheaper, stackable and useable by anyone this
ruling would make the card less like the wallpaper most think it is.
It is again however a change from card text.
Personally I don't think of the card as wallpaper because since it is
not equipment you do get a few advantages, such as with conquer the
beast or frenzy but its pretty unlikely anyone would shatter blow IR
goggles anyway. So I just consider it overpriced and wish the Nos
could gain blood easier such as Palatial Estate, Feeding razor.
Actually how about a Obfuscate hunting card that gained +1 blood or +2
at Superior in the next set?
This would help the other Ob clans but Nos would benefit more because
of Patagia and the animalism cards.
Also since in a fight they have no damage prevention like Celerity and
fortitude. It would give them sort of an indirect advantage/ability
that suits them.
Anyway please feel free to comment on the above and prove why my
reading of this book is totaly mistaken.
Rory
refp...@best.com (REF) wrote:
In case this does not seem an issue to anyone else here besides me let
me give an example of why I feel it to be important.
In my local play group V:tes was banned because of the card back
problem (as I understand it), this decision was made before it
actually came out and before I joined the group.
DS was banned when the cards actually came out and for several
reasons.
The most important to me are what keep it out of the group.
To many spoilers
To many wallpaper cards
The card back and incompatibility with old Jhyad collections
(many thousands of cards possesed by several of us each)
Most of these objections can be countered
Jhyad had spoilers such as the untap cards and we play with a
gentlemans card limit for them and we can do that for the DS spoilers
or ban specific cards.
Wallpaper also card in Jhyad and you simply don't use a card youy do
not feel is worthwhile.
The card back can be solved by a mix of common V:tes easily obtained
for the common and trades with me for rares. I have been mixing decks
for months with no objection (I just discard the cards that were not
in Jhyad and the backs don't matter)
The only objection I have not been able to counter is a question by a
key group member of WoTC support for this product line.
For that I have no real answer. He simply does not trust in the
company or continued survival of this game and will not invest any
more money in it nor even play with given cards.
Interest in the game is dying off among our group because we have
played out most of the ideas and strategies with the old set among
ourselves and I feel the introduction of new cards will bring back
some new ideas. So please give the game a vote of confidence if you
can.
Rory Fansler
Santa Clara, CA
In article <4kfd0s$3...@nntp1.best.com>, refp...@best.com (REF) writes:
>In my local play group V:tes was banned because of the card back
>problem (as I understand it), this decision was made before it
>actually came out and before I joined the group.
Well, in addition to the card back problem, we were (are) furious with
WotC for reneging on a commitment to compatibility.
>DS was banned when the cards actually came out and for several
>reasons.
>The most important to me are what keep it out of the group.
>To many spoilers
The clincher that kept it out.
>To many wallpaper cards
A big reason nobody much objected to keeping it out.
>The card back and incompatibility with old Jhyad collections
>(many thousands of cards possesed by several of us each)
The main reason.
There is also a price issue - now that Jyhad is so cheap, DS would have to
be quite desirable to justify 3 times the price.
>Most of these objections can be countered
>Jhyad had spoilers such as the untap cards and we play with a
>gentlemans card limit for them and we can do that for the DS spoilers
>or ban specific cards.
It's a lot of work to come up with such lists.
>Wallpaper also card in Jhyad and you simply don't use a card youy do
>not feel is worthwhile.>The card back can be solved by a mix of common V:tes easily obtained
>for the common and trades with me for rares. I have been mixing decks
>for months with no objection (I just discard the cards that were not
>in Jhyad and the backs don't matter)
Card backs are a problem with people who cheat: nobody think's you'd
cheat. There are others I'm not so sure about.
>The only objection I have not been able to counter is a question by a
>key group member of WoTC support for this product line.
>For that I have no real answer. He simply does not trust in the
>company or continued survival of this game and will not invest any
>more money in it nor even play with given cards.
Nothing to be said to that, obviously.
>Interest in the game is dying off among our group because we have
>played out most of the ideas and strategies with the old set among
>ourselves and I feel the introduction of new cards will bring back
>some new ideas.
Here (in expandability) Jyhad has a fundamental design problem. Jyhad
uses hoser cards for balance, which adds a lot of stability and makes
different strategies relatively easy to balance. Consequently, new
strategies would have to be countered with their own hosers.
Unfortunately, that overloads each player's ability to defend against
other strategies, as he has more to deal with but no more cards.
As an example, consider what happens when the number of clans goes from 7
to 13. On average, each hoser card would become only 7/13 as useful
(about 1/2). Existing clans, however, remain at the same power. So the
balance is disrupted.
Clan hosers aren't critical to Jyhad, so new clans can be added without
much disruption. New strategies, however, are quite a different issue.
You can tweak things and combine some disciplines not currently combined
(e.g. Setite OBF/PRE) but any significant changes will break the game's
structure.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
<Massive snipping>
>
> >The card back can be solved by a mix of common V:tes easily obtained
> >for the common and trades with me for rares. I have been mixing decks
> >for months with no objection (I just discard the cards that were not
> >in Jhyad and the backs don't matter)
>
> Card backs are a problem with people who cheat: nobody think's you'd
> cheat. There are others I'm not so sure about.
>
Though many may not like the concept and think it unfair is that my group
allows any mixing of back you want. In this we assume that Methuselahs
are out to get power any way they can, so if you wish to know what card
is coming, go right ahead.
My play group was also dismayed when the new card backs came out but we
descided(sp) that why give up a game that we enjoy. Remember that in the
real word ppl are out to cheat and get the best of you. In V:tM,
vampires do the same, even to the point of manipulating you. Why not in
a card game, in poker ppl bluff, well in V:tes/jyhad why not partially
stack your deck. If a person always has his WwEF with V:tes backing only
you'll learn that he has one if you go to bleed. In dirrectly ppl will
avoid a pure "stacking" just so their prey and predator don't figure out
what they truely have in their hand.
Thanx for listening to my babbling
===============================================================================
The embra of the gods |Ones sanity is | Write me, Zelf the Worox, at
Poptarts and Mountain | measured by | <andb...@prairie.nodak.edu> or
Dew |others iNsanITy|http://www.acm.und.nodak.edu/~andbrown
===============================================================================
curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) wrote:
>
>Well, in addition to the card back problem, we were (are) furious with
>WotC for reneging on a commitment to compatibility.
Worth not sniping even if no reply.
>There is also a price issue - now that Jyhad is so cheap, DS would have to
>be quite desirable to justify 3 times the price.
The price really is comparable for V:tes and Jhyad was expensive when
it first came out. So a deck can cheaply have a good mix of card
backs if desired and then you only play with DS cards you actually
like. Most of a deck would be Jhyad/V:tes anyway.
>>Most of these objections can be countered
>>Jhyad had spoilers such as the untap cards and we play with a
>>gentlemans card limit for them and we can do that for the DS spoilers
>>or ban specific cards.>It's a lot of work to come up with such lists.
Yes but we and many groups caqme up with such lists and other house
rules.
>Card backs are a problem with people who cheat: nobody think's you'd
>cheat. There are others I'm not so sure about.
Cheaters procan be dealt with. There are those who do not cheat who
would quickly pick up on the card counting and could turn it against
them. Perhaps kibitzing, You know thats probably an " " in your hand
or in the top of your libray.
Obviously tournament play is a problem because the cheater will know
his deck and no one else will.
>>The only objection I have not been able to counter is a question by a
>>key group member of WoTC support for this product line.
>>For that I have no real answer. He simply does not trust in the
>>company or continued survival of this game and will not invest any
>>more money in it nor even play with given cards.>Nothing to be said to that, obviously.
Unfortunate, but true.
This the reason I am posting here.
I like this game and want it to survive and even thrive.
Books like this do not help.
>Here (in expandability) Jyhad has a fundamental design problem. Jyhad
>uses hoser cards for balance, which adds a lot of stability and makes
>different strategies relatively easy to balance. Consequently, new
>strategies would have to be countered with their own hosers.
>Unfortunately, that overloads each player's ability to defend against
>other strategies, as he has more to deal with but no more cards.
Sniped example
>Clan hosers aren't critical to Jyhad, so new clans can be added without
>much disruption. New strategies, however, are quite a different issue.
>You can tweak things and combine some disciplines not currently combined
>(e.g. Setite OBF/PRE) but any significant changes will break the game's
>structure.
As you say hosers aren't a big deal. Unless you know who is at a
table you do not rely on them for defense or offense. Basic strategy
cards are what you use.
New strategies are dangerous to play balance as you say but I believe
theme cards are doable. New options are a risk but I believe that
with quality play testing in a wide/diversified group cards can be
made that add not subtract from the game.
Rory
This is the sort of post that I'm never sure how to respond to since it doesn't
seem that we'll ever be able to convince anyone on this group that we're
supporting VTES, regardless of anything we do or say about the matter. If
you don't think that the fact that there's a PPG in the first place shows that
we're supporting the product, then I don't see how pointing that that
commitment doesn't entail perfection is going to change anything. While
it's true that Darkness Unveiled could have been cleaner - and it's *always*
true that any given product could have been cleaner - the fact that you're
asking the question shows me that you've already made up your mind that you
don't think we're supporting the game.
Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes:
>- the fact that you're
>asking the question shows me that you've already made up your mind that
you
>don't think we're supporting the game.
I, for one, DO think that you support the game. You have always been
prompt, courteous, and informative with your replies to my questions
concerning the game. Thank you.
>- and it's *always* true that any given product could have been cleaner -
I agree. It is likely that there will always be errors and lack of
insight in any product. What's nice and convenient, is that we can rely
on you, Tom, to help set it straight. Thanks for being devoted to
Jyhad/V:TES and to all of us on the Net.
Sincerely,
Mort
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) wrote:
>This is the sort of post that I'm never sure how to respond to since it doesn't
>seem that we'll ever be able to convince anyone on this group that we're
>supporting VTES, regardless of anything we do or say about the matter. If
>you don't think that the fact that there's a PPG in the first place shows that
>we're supporting the product, then I don't see how pointing that that
>commitment doesn't entail perfection is going to change anything. While>it's true that Darkness Unveiled could have been cleaner - and it's *always*
>true that any given product could have been cleaner - the fact that you're>asking the question shows me that you've already made up your mind that you
>don't think we're supporting the game.>Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for
>aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
First let me say that I believe YOU support V:tes but the rest of the
company leaves me in doubt. Errors in a product are to be expected.
I find some of the card text errors minor, even amusing. The
wallpaper cards bother me not at all and some broken cards are
understandable. You have said that the next batch will be better
playtested and I believe you.
You know the game, look at this book as a rules editor though and tell
me what you think. A few errors are fine but are these people the
ones doing the playtesting?
Whats PPG?
And why were you not involved in this book?
Rory
Tom,
Let me assure you that we do believe that you support the game and we
appreciate the work you do and your presence on this newsgroup. We may
not always agree with what you say (and we will certainly point out
anything we think you're mistaken about) but we know you are interested in
seeing this game prosper.
These posts are born out of frustration. We all see a great game and we
know exactly how to make it thrive but are often amazed at the workings of
your corporate folks. A little playtesting will go a long way toward
calming the crowd.
thanks for your efforts for us.
Doug Dunaway
In article <4kms5n$e...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R
Wylie) wrote:
> This is the sort of post that I'm never sure how to respond to since it
doesn't
> seem that we'll ever be able to convince anyone on this group that we're
> supporting VTES, regardless of anything we do or say about the matter. If
> you don't think that the fact that there's a PPG in the first place
shows that
> we're supporting the product, then I don't see how pointing that that
> commitment doesn't entail perfection is going to change anything. While
> it's true that Darkness Unveiled could have been cleaner - and it's
*always*
> true that any given product could have been cleaner - the fact that you're
> asking the question shows me that you've already made up your mind that you
> don't think we're supporting the game.
<sigh>
Well, Tom, let me first say, I don't envy you your position. As liason
to WotC, you have to deal with the brunt of our anger, etc., and that may
often be difficult. Realize, I understand this. I have been in similar
(though smaller) positions for groups. I hope you don't take this as
negatively as I think you could, so realize that my feelings are directed
not at you, but at WotC...
IMHO, Support for V:tES has been marginal. I hope this will change, but
until I see Ancient Hearts, I cannot say that WotC support is anything
but marginalized.
The PPG was nice to release (and in general, far better than the previous
effort). It does not, however, _prove_ support by WotC. AFAIK, nearly
all of the CCGs still in production that have been on the market for over
a year have a PPG.
I could rant for some time, but it would not really accomplish anything.
I think that this sums it up best.
I was at the Jyhad League, here in Madison, and _all_ of us were
expressing our disgust at Dark Sovereigns and a number of issues
regarding V:tES (as in, Revised Jyhad). The League meets regularly at a
CCG group in Madison, and a little nine-year old from another table
overheard us. He said, "Oh, Vampire. That's that game that WotC keeps
dropping the ball on, isn't it?"
The kid doesn't even play the game. He is a Magic player who plays CCGs
with mostly Magic and Overpower players. His response is typical from
people I've met at conventions, at CCG groups, all over.
The easiest way for WotC to make me feel that they support Jyhad is to
follow through on three things:
1) Ancient Hearts. If this expansion looks thoroughly playtested, that
will be one step towards my acceptance. Mistakes happen, but they
shouldn't happen on the league of DS.
2) Phone Support. Too often I have to correct the rulings (I keep an
up-to-date errata list with me for players) of WotC phone support.
Often, I hear things from players who _just_ called and got a ruling 4
months out of date. My solution has been to suggest to people to _never_
listen to WotC phone support.
3) Card Stock. Simply put, the card stock of the V:tES cards is lousy.
They wear at a phenomenal rate. In the Jyhad League, we can _tell_ when
the V:tES cards are coming up blindfolded. They have a greasy feel,
parts of the card chip off, and in general they feel more aged. I have
cards that I have been playing with since the game was released that are
in better shape than cards we've played with for TWO WEEKS. Change back
to the old stock or a new one.
Since I'm already on a soapbox, I'll throw out a pipe dream :)
Somehow overcome the card back fiasco. The simplest way is to market
opaque card backs (or help another company market them). If they were
sold with different back patterns, I know tons of people who would buy
them for any CCG. Magic players constantly use sleeves, and if the
sleeves were decorative, many would buy them for the flair of
uniqueness. Older, more worn cards could be played unmarked. In regards
to Jyhad, mixing of card backs would no longer be an issue.
This has gotten longish...
Tom,
You may feel that you can never convince those of us who feel there
isn't support, but that isn't true. For the most part, we want to be
convinced. No one likes the feeling of being on what they perceive to be
a sinking ship. I hope that my opinion changes, and I hope you can help
that change.
Thanks for listening, everyone...
"I can send and receive e-mail even over the Internet"-aol commercial
@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$
# Adrian Sullivan sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu Spoutingly yours 8^) #
$ GAT/CS/O/WS R+++* tv&--- b++(+++)&+ t X++&-- 5->? e+*>++++ PS+&-+ @
# PE&++&- C(+++)$ UX+>+++$ N++(+) K+>++++ w---$>? M++$ r(+) z*+? 3.1#
@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$
Hopefully Adrian won't mind, but my thoughs just aboyut echo his, but
I have to add one or 2 things.
The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> wrote:
>Well, Tom, let me first say, I don't envy you your position. As liason
>to WotC, you have to deal with the brunt of our anger, etc., and that may
>often be difficult. Realize, I understand this. I have been in similar
>(though smaller) positions for groups. I hope you don't take this as
>negatively as I think you could, so realize that my feelings are directed
>not at you, but at WotC...
I persnoally think Tom has done a solid job, and anything negative is
directed at WotC, not him.
>The PPG was nice to release (and in general, far better than the previous
>effort). It does not, however, _prove_ support by WotC. AFAIK, nearly
>all of the CCGs still in production that have been on the market for over
>a year have a PPG.
And I haven't seen it here. My primary game store doesn't even think
it exists. If there was true support, they would know about it.
>The easiest way for WotC to make me feel that they support Jyhad is to
>follow through on three things:>1) Ancient Hearts. If this expansion looks thoroughly playtested, that
>will be one step towards my acceptance. Mistakes happen, but they
>shouldn't happen on the league of DS.
The poorness of DS has been stated time and again by many in the
group. If this is repeated in AH, many players may stop buying... and
there are not enough players as it is.
>2) Phone Support. Too often I have to correct the rulings (I keep an
>up-to-date errata list with me for players) of WotC phone support.
>Often, I hear things from players who _just_ called and got a ruling 4
>months out of date. My solution has been to suggest to people to _never_
>listen to WotC phone support.
One of my friends is looking to run a sanctioned VTES tourney. He was
told to go to the DC web site to get the tourney rules. Bad idea (see
below). I'm not sure if this was by phone or by email (I think
email), but it amounts to the same thing. I have never trusted
anything from a non-netrep, and that includes the rules email address,
which has incorrectly answered a couple of questions about both Jyhad
and MtG.
>3) Card Stock. Simply put, the card stock of the V:tES cards is lousy.
>They wear at a phenomenal rate. In the Jyhad League, we can _tell_ when
>the V:tES cards are coming up blindfolded. They have a greasy feel,
>parts of the card chip off, and in general they feel more aged. I have
>cards that I have been playing with since the game was released that are
>in better shape than cards we've played with for TWO WEEKS. Change back
>to the old stock or a new one.
Definately. A card I used once was noticably worn. Part may be the
fact my hand sweat while I play, but the old cards still look just
about perfect.
4) Update the frigging DC web-site. It still has the 2 card
restricted list. The MtG site gets updated within a day of the
changes... the VTES is never updated. At least give the same support
to both. That irks me to no end, b/c I looked like an idiot last
night saying "thats the old one" while he said "the WotC person told
me to go there."
5) It would be nice if you could run a sanctioned event (if you
wanted to) more easily. My friend was told that he had to run a
non-sanctioned on 1st, plus all the paper work that I'm sure goes
along with it.
CT
--
Charles T. Schwope | Every man is a spark in the darkness. By the
aka CT | time he is noticed, he is gone forever, a
sch...@infrared.csc.ti.com | retinal afterimage that fades, and is obscured
c-sc...@ti.com | by newer, brighter lights.
The Corrupter replied to Thomas R Wylie:
[cut]
> 3) Card Stock. Simply put, the card stock of the V:tES cards is lousy.
[snip]
> Since I'm already on a soapbox, I'll throw out a pipe dream :)
> Somehow overcome the card back fiasco. The simplest way> is to market opaque card backs...
--
Adrian -
I know it is highly unlikely, but to dream about it, offer the
Jyhad labeled backings with future expansions!
----------------------------------------------
Andrew Hart Email: Ta...@aol.com
http://users.aimnet.com/~taven
Funny thing is, I have NEVER seen an official reply about the Bad
Cards Stock. All our new cards wear indeed off at an incredible rate,
and I don't play Jyhad/V:tes without sleeves anymore... WotC go back
to Carta Mundi please...
PHIlippus
|
http://www.cs.utwente.nl/~baalman | "Talk to yourself
mailto:j.p.a....@student.utwente.nl | Listen, because no one else will"
Philippus Baalman | --- The God Machine
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles T. Schwope <c-sc...@ti.com> wrote:
>>The PPG was nice to release (and in general, far better than the previous
>>effort). It does not, however, _prove_ support by WotC. AFAIK, nearly
>>all of the CCGs still in production that have been on the market for over
>>a year have a PPG.> And I haven't seen it here. My primary game store doesn't even think
>it exists. If there was true support, they would know about it.
We can't control the flow of communication throughout the distribution
network. Darkness Unveiled was solicited normally, was included in catalogs
normally, was announced several times in Upcoming Product releases, etc.
The strange but true fact is that not every store hears of every product
that we announce.
>5) It would be nice if you could run a sanctioned event (if you
>wanted to) more easily. My friend was told that he had to run a
>non-sanctioned on 1st, plus all the paper work that I'm sure goes
>along with it.
The sanctioned events are screened somewhat because every such tournament
reflects directly on the DC in peoples' eyes, despite the fact that we have
little control over what goes on at the tournament site. What control we
do have comes from screening out the people who just think it would be cool
to run a tournament, with no idea how to do it.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <4kms5n$e...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>,
Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote:
>
>This is the sort of post that I'm never sure how to respond to since it doesn't
>seem that we'll ever be able to convince anyone on this group that we're
>supporting VTES, regardless of anything we do or say about the matter.
Well, that's probably because the actions of the company speak
louder than anything you can say. You are one of the few support
mechanisms left for the game. Look at The Duelist. Tell me, which
games does IT make me think you support?
>If
>you don't think that the fact that there's a PPG in the first place shows that
>we're supporting the product, then I don't see how pointing that that
>commitment doesn't entail perfection is going to change anything.
Huh? A PPG shows support, sure. But I've never seen it. My
retailer doesn't know it exists (although they've heard about
Netrunner ad nauseum). Where's the support in getting it to me?
>While
>it's true that Darkness Unveiled could have been cleaner - and it's *always*
>true that any given product could have been cleaner - the fact that you're
>asking the question shows me that you've already made up your mind that you
>don't think we're supporting the game.
Oh, come on. "X could have been cleaner" has been the rallying
cry of WotC since day 1. You're the biggest, and you've cut the non-CCG
stuff, so stop claiming "X could have been cleaner" and clean it up.
There are any number of companies putting out cleaner materials than
WotC these days. Prove you're a leader by the quality of your product.
--
| If you've got a hot lead on a new | *--Joe--*
| PC game, call the announce line at | js...@vt.edu
| ** csi...@vt.edu ** | http://hci.ise.vt.edu/~jsciv/
+-------------------------------------+----------------------------------
"So ... What goes on the cards???" -- Anon.
I have also been playing Jyhad since it came to be. I really enjoy the
game. I live in an area where games besides magic dont get much support,
and i sold all my other card games. Including three thousand dollars
worth a magick, and now the only game i play is Jyhad. Dont have manuy
players for it, but hey when u have a good game. Here is what i think.
Not only is the card quality of DS bad, but also the randomness of them.
Me and my friend bought each at least a box and a half and we dont have a
complete set. Maybe it is our luck but in a total of three boxes we
couldnt get a complete set. I had a compltete set of arabains in a little
less that a box. ANother thing, when i see adds i see them for magic and
not for VTES. I played magick for two years and finally realized the game
blew chunks. Reason being is in magick there really isnt much thinking
involved, unless u count trying to remember which rules changed and which
one stayed the same.(Other problem with Magic, the rules arent constant,
they change more times than a prostitute changes partners). IF Wizard of
the Coast would get there heads out of their butts and smell the coffee
the game would be better.
Lets take Rage for an example. Made by White Wolf. The game is more
popular than Jyhad even thou Jyhad is better. Reason be, the cards are
awesome quality. IT is still based on the same kind of things, monsters.
THey release somewhat on time with what the say. In a little over a year
WW has put out four expansins on thsi game and how many expansions has WTC
put out. One.
ALl in all. Just start thining about what the heck u are doing before
one starts doing them. IN my opinion, I think WTC should sell back the
rights to WW on Jyhad and let them work with it, they would make it
better.
I still love to play Jyhad and VTES thou, so dont get me wrong.
--
<<0----------------------------------------------------------0>>
| |
| Gamemaster |
| jwr3992.silver.sdsmt.edu |
| (Josh Rensch) |
| "Science is an Illusion, |
| History is a Lie." |
<<0----------------------------------------------------------0>>
Tom:
>This is the sort of post that I'm never sure how to respond to since it doesnt>seem that we'll ever be able to convince anyone on this group that we're
>supporting VTES, regardless of anything we do or say about the matter.
Joe:
> Well, that's probably because the actions of the company speak
>louder than anything you can say. You are one of the few support
>mechanisms left for the game. Look at The Duelist. Tell me, which
>games does IT make me think you support?
Alan:
That's an unfair assumption, I think. Jyhad/VTES is a very good game,
perhaps the best extant; it's the simple fact, however, that Magic is the
big money-maker, and by far the more 'popular' game. It stands to reason that
WOTC is going to have a lot more visible support for their High-visibility game
and less for the smaller-following games. To say that the Duelist is going
to spend more time on Magic than VTES should be a given -- there are four
or maybe five Magic players for every VTES player.
Not that this excuses _everything_, but the Duelist is, and will
probably remain, fairly dedicated to the Magic circuit rather than VTES.
Tom:
>If you don't think that the fact that the PPG in the first place shows that>we're supporting the product, then I don't see how pointing that that
>commitment doesn't entail perfection is going to change anything.
Joe:
> Huh? A PPG shows support, sure. But I've never seen it. My
>retailer doesn't know it exists (although they've heard about
>Netrunner ad nauseum). Where's the support in getting it to me?
Alan:
I think this is a little harsh too. If the retailer overlooks the
product specs which WOTC distributes (and I know that they do distribute
specs) you can't hold WOTC responsible.
Tom:
>While
>it's true that Darkness Unveiled could have been cleaner - and it's *always*
>true that any given product could have been cleaner - the fact that you're
>asking the question shows me that you've already made up your mind that you
>don't think we're supporting the game.
Alan:
I rather saw the whole thing as a request for future commitment to the
game exceeding what has previously been the case (declining standards, lowering
priorities, often tangled rules questions). It's not that we want WOTC to
fail (if it did, it would mean the game would cease production) or that we
are simply 'bashing the big guy'. I personally could settle for a very small,
very dedicated group of individuals who oversee the VTES project exclusively;
dedciating their time to cleaning up the obvious errors and attempting to
disseminate information in a timely manner standardizing playing practices
throughout the playing environment. Leaving the project to those who are
wearing two hats inevitably leads to having that representative attempt to
prioritize his time : do I investigate the Jyhad wording problem which impacts
a few players or do I investigate the Magic problem which impacts many more.
The choice, from a business perspective, is obvious. This is one of the main
problems with the current setup.
Joe:
> Oh, come on. "X could have been cleaner" has been the rallying
>cry of WotC since day 1. You're the biggest, and you've cut the non-CCG
>stuff, so stop claiming "X could have been cleaner" and clean it up.
>There are any number of companies putting out cleaner materials than
>WotC these days. Prove you're a leader by the quality of your product.
Alan:
Again, this is a little unfair. Biggest doesn't mean 'most efficient'.
They could simply 'clean up their product' as you suggest - this means the
delays in release that other individuals decry as 'not supporting the game'.
If they do rush production, they're criticized as 'releasing a second-rate
product', and this gets marked against them.
Also, these other companies that you cite release one or two games.
WOTC has currently two and one-half (Netrunner not yet having been released).
These other companies have the experience of learning from WOTC mistakes and
pioneering -- Jyhad, IIRC, was still one of the earliest CCG's released,
and so it has a few design flaws that probably would not have been made if
it had been playtested longer.
NOT that this excuses the printing errors in VTES/DS. Proofreading
is important. I just think that you can't point to it repeatedly and say
'this is symptomatic of a decline', because everybody cites it.
My .02
Alan (aj)
--
wWWw | Alan Flesch Member, Order of the Harper
wWWWWw |Fritz: I come seeking Political Asylum!
o<.WWWWW |Bloodnok: Take a bus to the House of Commons, that's the
^ ^ | greatest Political Asylum in the world!
In article <4l5pvc$2...@charon.usc.edu>,
Alan Flesch <afl...@charon.usc.edu> wrote:
>Tom:>>This is the sort of post that I'm never sure how to respond to since it doesnt
>>seem that we'll ever be able to convince anyone on this group that we're
>>supporting VTES, regardless of anything we do or say about the matter.>Joe:>> Well, that's probably because the actions of the company speak
>>louder than anything you can say. You are one of the few support
>>mechanisms left for the game. Look at The Duelist. Tell me, which
>>games does IT make me think you support?>Alan:
> That's an unfair assumption, I think. Jyhad/VTES is a very good game,
>perhaps the best extant; it's the simple fact, however, that Magic is the
>big money-maker, and by far the more 'popular' game. It stands to reason that
So? That precludes space in a magazine? I don't think so. I
pointed out the total lack of Jyhad articles for months right here
in this group before any (other than advertising pieces) appeared. If
I have to pull teeth to see my favorite game in print, I certainly
don't feel like the game is supported.
>Tom:>>If you don't think that the fact that the PPG in the first place shows that
>>we're supporting the product, then I don't see how pointing that that
>>commitment doesn't entail perfection is going to change anything.>Joe:>> Huh? A PPG shows support, sure. But I've never seen it. My
>>retailer doesn't know it exists (although they've heard about
>>Netrunner ad nauseum). Where's the support in getting it to me?>Alan:
> I think this is a little harsh too. If the retailer overlooks the
>product specs which WOTC distributes (and I know that they do distribute
>specs) you can't hold WOTC responsible.
If my retailer can get TONS of stuff on Netrunner and can
easily get any information on Magic, yet they have to search through
the product specs to find stuff on V:tES, of course it's not WotC's
fault. Not at all... (yes, that was sarcasm).
>Joe:>> Oh, come on. "X could have been cleaner" has been the rallying
>>cry of WotC since day 1. You're the biggest, and you've cut the non-CCG
>>stuff, so stop claiming "X could have been cleaner" and clean it up.
>>There are any number of companies putting out cleaner materials than
>>WotC these days. Prove you're a leader by the quality of your product.>Alan:
> Again, this is a little unfair. Biggest doesn't mean 'most efficient'.
Oh, and that excuses them? Biggest means "has the best resources
to draw from," and WotC has money, staff, good customer support, a top-
rated company rag and the best name recognition in the industry. What
in there excuses sloppy product?
>They could simply 'clean up their product' as you suggest - this means the
>delays in release that other individuals decry as 'not supporting the game'.
>If they do rush production, they're criticized as 'releasing a second-rate
>product', and this gets marked against them.
I don't buy that. Atlas put out QUALITY expansions for OnTE
like clockwork; good product, good schedule. How come WotC has to
sacrifice one for the other??
> Also, these other companies that you cite release one or two games.
Aside from the fact that you don't even know what companies
I'm citing...
>WOTC has currently two and one-half (Netrunner not yet having been released).
>These other companies have the experience of learning from WOTC mistakes and
>pioneering -- Jyhad, IIRC, was still one of the earliest CCG's released,
>and so it has a few design flaws that probably would not have been made if
>it had been playtested longer.
No, it has MAGIC, the monster that ate the company; Jyhad, the
bastard son; and Netrunner, the new baby.
Really, the only leeway I'll give them is that Magic is problematic
to deal with because it's too big. But that still doesn't excuse them
given the performances of other CCG makers.
> NOT that this excuses the printing errors in VTES/DS. Proofreading
>is important. I just think that you can't point to it repeatedly and say
>'this is symptomatic of a decline', because everybody cites it.
Huh? I said Jyhad/V:tES isn't supported. Where in there did I
imply that WotC is in decline? They're a growing company and I wish
them the best. I just don't like to see (what to me are) false claims
about game support.
I think you're reading something that I didn't write...
[ quoted text not captured ]
Let me start by saying that I am interested in _discussing_ the problems.
I don't want to fight with anyone -- if this discussion devolves into
bickering then I'm going to stop. (Not that it has so far, but I think
that this kind of discussion can quickly get out of hand.)
Anyway, My responses (and retractions).
>>Tom:>>>This is the sort of post that I'm never sure how to respond to since it doesnt
>>>seem that we'll ever be able to convince anyone on this group that we're
>>>supporting VTES, regardless of anything we do or say about the matter.>>Joe:>>> Well, that's probably because the actions of the company speak
>>>louder than anything you can say. You are one of the few support
>>>mechanisms left for the game. Look at The Duelist. Tell me, which
>>>games does IT make me think you support?>>Alan:
>> That's an unfair assumption, I think. Jyhad/VTES is a very good game,
>>perhaps the best extant; it's the simple fact, however, that Magic is the
>>big money-maker, and by far the more 'popular' game. It stands to reason that> So? That precludes space in a magazine? I don't think so. I
>pointed out the total lack of Jyhad articles for months right here
>in this group before any (other than advertising pieces) appeared. If
>I have to pull teeth to see my favorite game in print, I certainly
>don't feel like the game is supported.
Maybe we ought to have some sort of guidelines for 'support'? It seems here
that the lack of articles in the Duelist would be one criticism (and a pretty
fair one, I think.) The obvious answer to this is to have a VTES version
of 'Card Spotlight' or something to that effect; I'm not sure that this
would realy placate the angered. :)
We would need a discussion of strategies, card-spotlights, and (when the
tournament system is a little cleaner) tournament information.
>>Tom:>>>If you don't think that the fact that the PPG in the first place shows that
>>>we're supporting the product, then I don't see how pointing that that
>>>commitment doesn't entail perfection is going to change anything.>>Joe:>>> Huh? A PPG shows support, sure. But I've never seen it. My
>>>retailer doesn't know it exists (although they've heard about
>>>Netrunner ad nauseum). Where's the support in getting it to me?>>Alan:
>> I think this is a little harsh too. If the retailer overlooks the
>>product specs which WOTC distributes (and I know that they do distribute
>>specs) you can't hold WOTC responsible.> If my retailer can get TONS of stuff on Netrunner and can
>easily get any information on Magic, yet they have to search through
>the product specs to find stuff on V:tES, of course it's not WotC's
>fault. Not at all... (yes, that was sarcasm).
I've writen six or seven paragraphs on this and erased each one, as not
really answering your criticism. On the one hand, of Course Netrunner will
be hyper-plugged in specs before its release. Of Course Magic will get
the majority of space in the specs: it's the big money maker. But this
doesn't answer your point; it only reinforces it.
This is a valid point (I concede! :) VTES is _always_ going to be
second to something unless the demand for product increases to epic
proportions. Perhaps WOTC _could_ increase the space in product specs
devoted to VTES. I'm not sure what else can be done...
>>Joe:>>> Oh, come on. "X could have been cleaner" has been the rallying
>>>cry of WotC since day 1. You're the biggest, and you've cut the non-CCG
>>>stuff, so stop claiming "X could have been cleaner" and clean it up.
>>>There are any number of companies putting out cleaner materials than
>>>WotC these days. Prove you're a leader by the quality of your product.>>Alan:
>> Again, this is a little unfair. Biggest doesn't mean 'most efficient'.> Oh, and that excuses them? Biggest means "has the best resources
>to draw from," and WotC has money, staff, good customer support, a top-
>rated company rag and the best name recognition in the industry. What
>in there excuses sloppy product?
Hmmm... This is harder to answer than the earlier posting. The problem, I
think, is that the question is loaded -- there is _no_ excuse for a sloppy
product. We have to ask Why the product was sloppy, and there's no real
easy answer...
I'll need to think about this... (cop-out!)
>>They could simply 'clean up their product' as you suggest - this means the
>>delays in release that other individuals decry as 'not supporting the game'.
>>If they do rush production, they're criticized as 'releasing a second-rate
>>product', and this gets marked against them.> I don't buy that. Atlas put out QUALITY expansions for OnTE
>like clockwork; good product, good schedule. How come WotC has to
>sacrifice one for the other??
Because it seems WOTC has the same team working on both. I think a seperate
division of designers who ONLY deal with VTES would improve both the quality
of the game and the timeliness of the releases. If you have the same people
working on two seperate projects, one automatically becomes prioritized.
>> Also, these other companies that you cite release one or two games.> Aside from the fact that you don't even know what companies
>I'm citing...
Ouch! Touche. I hate it when I do that. You're absolutely correct.
>>WOTC has currently two and one-half (Netrunner not yet having been released).
>>These other companies have the experience of learning from WOTC mistakes and
>>pioneering -- Jyhad, IIRC, was still one of the earliest CCG's released,
>>and so it has a few design flaws that probably would not have been made if
>>it had been playtested longer.> No, it has MAGIC, the monster that ate the company; Jyhad, the
>bastard son; and Netrunner, the new baby.
And like all new babies, it will be ignored once it stops being new. :)
> Really, the only leeway I'll give them is that Magic is problematic
>to deal with because it's too big. But that still doesn't excuse them
>given the performances of other CCG makers.
I'm sorry, I'm not sure I follow this...
>> NOT that this excuses the printing errors in VTES/DS. Proofreading
>>is important. I just think that you can't point to it repeatedly and say
>>'this is symptomatic of a decline', because everybody cites it.> Huh? I said Jyhad/V:tES isn't supported. Where in there did I
>imply that WotC is in decline? They're a growing company and I wish
>them the best. I just don't like to see (what to me are) false claims
>about game support.> I think you're reading something that I didn't write...
Sorry. Point taken. I got rhetorically rapt? :)
[ quoted text not captured ]
afl...@charon.usc.edu (Alan Flesch) wrote:
>Let me start by saying that I am interested in _discussing_ the problems.
>I don't want to fight with anyone -- if this discussion devolves into
>bickering then I'm going to stop. (Not that it has so far, but I think
>that this kind of discussion can quickly get out of hand.)
Well as you picked up from my original post I want to encourage
product support and not discourageTom or anybody else from WoTC who is
interested in this game.
>>>Tom:>>>>This is the sort of post that I'm never sure how to respond to since it doesnt
>>>>seem that we'll ever be able to convince anyone on this group that we're
>>>>supporting VTES, regardless of anything we do or say about the matter.>>>Joe:>>>> Well, that's probably because the actions of the company speak
>>>>louder than anything you can say. You are one of the few support
>>>>mechanisms left for the game. Look at The Duelist. Tell me, which
>>>>games does IT make me think you support?>>>Alan:
>>> That's an unfair assumption, I think. Jyhad/VTES is a very good game,
>>>perhaps the best extant; it's the simple fact, however, that Magic is the
>>>big money-maker, and by far the more 'popular' game. It stands to reason that
Rory:
It is a very good game and I want it to stay that way or get better.
>Maybe we ought to have some sort of guidelines for 'support'? It seems here
>that the lack of articles in the Duelist would be one criticism (and a pretty
>fair one, I think.) The obvious answer to this is to have a VTES version
>of 'Card Spotlight' or something to that effect; I'm not sure that this
>would realy placate the angered. :)
Rory
Guidlines?
How about what I sugested? Good proofreading.
Tom has been with the company supporting Jhyad for at least a year and
should have been involved in this book. From his preformance here I
have to believe that he would have caught some of those. All is of
course expecting to much (unless maybe they hired Scott<g>)
Seiously I expect errors but not that many in one book or perhaps so
many card errors.
Hence my comment about talking to Steve Jackson Games.
They too make mistakes but not as many and they have vey good support
for errata.
They have 2 people who regularly monitor thier newsgroup. A Net rep
and thier Senior editor. I spotted an error in a recent book,
mentioned it online and had a Email and online response within 24hrs.
The editor had checked the book and confirmed the error then explained
the logic behind the cost with alternatives for getting the effect I
wanted at a reawsonable (balanced) cost.
The next time I hit thier errata site for that book a few days later I
saw the correction.
This is an example of what I consider good product support.
>>>Alan:
>>> I think this is a little harsh too. If the retailer overlooks the
>>>product specs which WOTC distributes (and I know that they do distribute
>>>specs) you can't hold WOTC responsible.
Rory:
Agreed. V:tes and now AH are getting sufficient advertising attention
that a distributor should have no problem getting the info.
>>>Joe:>>>> Oh, come on. "X could have been cleaner" has been the rallying
>>>>cry of WotC since day 1. You're the biggest, and you've cut the non-CCG
>>>>stuff, so stop claiming "X could have been cleaner" and clean it up.
>>>>There are any number of companies putting out cleaner materials than
>>>>WotC these days. Prove you're a leader by the quality of your product.>>>Alan:
>>> Again, this is a little unfair. Biggest doesn't mean 'most efficient'.>> Oh, and that excuses them? Biggest means "has the best resources
>>to draw from," and WotC has money, staff, good customer support, a top-
>>rated company rag and the best name recognition in the industry. What
>>in there excuses sloppy product?>Hmmm... This is harder to answer than the earlier posting. The problem, I
>think, is that the question is loaded -- there is _no_ excuse for a sloppy
>product. We have to ask Why the product was sloppy, and there's no real
>easy answer...>I'll need to think about this... (cop-out!)
Rory:
My take is that they believe thier is no need for proofreading. Why
they feel that way is more of a loaded question.
>>>They could simply 'clean up their product' as you suggest - this means the
>>>delays in release that other individuals decry as 'not supporting the game'.
>>>If they do rush production, they're criticized as 'releasing a second-rate
>>>product', and this gets marked against them.
Rory:
DS and Darkness Unveiled were along time coming.
I believe in paying more and waiting longer for a quality product.
I believe there is a place for cheap products but that there was
sufficient time to playtest and proofread.
The cheap card backs maybe they didn't realize they would be so bad
until they were shipped.
>> I don't buy that. Atlas put out QUALITY expansions for OnTE
>>like clockwork; good product, good schedule. How come WotC has to
>>sacrifice one for the other??>Because it seems WOTC has the same team working on both. I think a seperate
>division of designers who ONLY deal with VTES would improve both the quality
>of the game and the timeliness of the releases. If you have the same people
>working on two seperate projects, one automatically becomes prioritized.
Rory:
A good comment and suggestion.
They downsized to concentrate on CCGs so why do they not have the
resources to do both well?
>>>WOTC has currently two and one-half (Netrunner not yet having been released).
>>>These other companies have the experience of learning from WOTC mistakes and
>>>pioneering -- Jyhad, IIRC, was still one of the earliest CCG's released,
>>>and so it has a few design flaws that probably would not have been made if
>>>it had been playtested longer.
Rory:
Actually the original design is Quite good and balanced. It does need
some new blood to reinspire creativity and if this can be done while
maintaining balance then we can continue to enjoy the game.
>>> NOT that this excuses the printing errors in VTES/DS. Proofreading
>>>is important. I just think that you can't point to it repeatedly and say
>>>'this is symptomatic of a decline', because everybody cites it.>
Rory
Philippus Baalman <j.p.a....@student.utwente.nl> wrote:
>Funny thing is, I have NEVER seen an official reply about the Bad
>Cards Stock. All our new cards wear indeed off at an incredible rate,
>and I don't play Jyhad/V:tes without sleeves anymore... WotC go back
>to Carta Mundi please...
The reason I've commented on that very little, if at all, is because there's
a legal dispute between us and USPC, so I'm assuming that legal doesn't want
us discussing anything conerning them publicly.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Joseph Cochran <js...@bev.net> wrote:
> Well, that's probably because the actions of the company speak
>louder than anything you can say. You are one of the few support
>mechanisms left for the game. Look at The Duelist. Tell me, which
>games does IT make me think you support?
The Duelist is a magazine. As such, it has to serve the readers, and the
customer feedback surveys routinely rank non-Magic coverage of *any* kind
at or near the bottom of the list. Determing the VTES content for each issue
is a balancing act between what we want to include, and what the readers
want to see.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Josh Rensch <jwr...@silver.sdsmt.edu> wrote:
>Another thing, if Jyhad is so supported, why the hell dont it have a price
>guide and complete list, huh?
We don't do price guies at all. The card list has been published in the
Duelist, and should be available through customer service.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Face facts, gang. V:tES has been hopelessly screwed up by the card-back
change and the inclusion in DS of apparently-unplaytested cards. WoTC has
no need or intention to suport V:tES to the same extent as MtG or NR,
period.
Best thing that could happen? WoTC sells the franchise to a company that
would give the game proper support. Thing that actually will happen?
WoTC will continue to release the occasional supplement to V:tES (late, of
course) and focus on new product and their big seller. Welcome to
reality.
BTW, when WoTC wins their big court case, where will the money go?
Rebates to V:tES purchasers? When Atogs fly.
Nicholas Cascone
You want clever? Send money. I don't work for free.
In article <4l5l4n$d...@news.sdsmt.edu>, jwr...@silver.sdsmt.edu (Josh
Rensch) wrote:
> Another thing, if Jyhad is so supported, why the hell dont it have a price
> guide and complete list, huh?> Just curious.
Well, they don't normally publish price guides for any of their games. As
for the complete list, that they did. (Remember, InQuest and Scrye are
independent; the only one they can control is the Duelist.)
J. Andrew Lipscomb <ew...@chattanooga.net, them...@delphi.com>
PGP keys by request
Thomas R Wylie wrote:
>
> Philippus Baalman <j.p.a....@student.utwente.nl> wrote:
> >Funny thing is, I have NEVER seen an official reply about the Bad
> >Cards Stock. All our new cards wear indeed off at an incredible rate,
> >and I don't play Jyhad/V:tes without sleeves anymore... WotC go back
> >to Carta Mundi please...
>
> The reason I've commented on that very little, if at all, is because there's
> a legal dispute between us and USPC, so I'm assuming that legal doesn't want
> us discussing anything conerning them publicly.
Maybe it's because the stock sucks so badly...... =)
I normally use sleeves, so there doesn't seem to be a dicernible difference, except for
the month that i didn't use sleeves....
- Ed
>4) Update the frigging DC web-site. It still has the 2 card
>restricted list. The MtG site gets updated within a day of the
>changes... the VTES is never updated. At least give the same support
>to both. That irks me to no end, b/c I looked like an idiot last
>night saying "thats the old one" while he said "the WotC person told
>me to go there."
I wrote a letter to webm...@wizards.com, asking them to update the
site. I will admit it was harsh - I was VERY upset because I had
written a letter 6 months ago, and nothig had been done. (I had also
recently been referred by WotC support to their web site for
information which was not there.)
What I got back shocked me. I was nearly FLAMED by the response.
I'll paste it in here:
> I could get personally insulted by this; "Sorry of this is a bit
>harsh" doesn't excuse you from behaving like a considerate adult.
>
> I suppose you assume that I both generate the data I serve on this
>site AND render it into HTML. Nope; this is a corporation, and I'm a
>service bureau. I turn OTHER PEOPLE'S DATA into HTML; I must wait for
>someone to give me a card list, or a FAQ, or rules errata, before I
>can do anything about it. And I don't have any authority to FORCE
>them to give me such data when they have their "usual" jobs to do.> We are perfectly aware of the shortcomings in our website, and are
>moving as fast as possible to correct these. But, to be brutally
>honest, we're in the business of making card games, NOT publishing
>data on the Web. I am not priority #1.
As I said, I was harsh to them with my original letter, but this is
ridiculous. I pointed out that this information was avaialable on
their old website, and that it should not be dificult to ask someone
for a disk, or simply copy it from a network (WotC uses shared folders
on Macs for their work - this is how the "sosumi" rumor for Magic
started).
To their credit, I asked him again, and told him that if he won't do
it, please forward the letter to his manager so SOMEONE knew what I
felt and would do something. A few days later, the FAQ appeared on
the Web Site.
Since then, nothing has come about. I'd like to encourage people to
write NICE letters to webm...@wizards.com requesting more stuff -
card lists, updated eratta, DS Eratta, etc.
TOM - you're doing a great job. Please keep it up, and see if you can
encourage others at WotC to pay attention to you / us.
--
Geoffrey "Gofe" Schaller "Laugh, and the world laughs with you
dr...@libertynet.org Weep, and you weep alone.
1831 Canterbury Road For the sad old Earth
Abington, PA 19001 Must borrow its mirth
(215) 886-7999 But has troubles enough of its own."
http://www.libertynet.org/~drake/
In article <4l8j8i$q...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>,
Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote:
>Joseph Cochran <js...@bev.net> wrote:>> Well, that's probably because the actions of the company speak
>>louder than anything you can say. You are one of the few support
>>mechanisms left for the game. Look at The Duelist. Tell me, which
>>games does IT make me think you support?>The Duelist is a magazine. As such, it has to serve the readers, and the
>customer feedback surveys routinely rank non-Magic coverage of *any* kind
>at or near the bottom of the list. Determing the VTES content for each issue
>is a balancing act between what we want to include, and what the readers
>want to see.
So? I know that Magic is the end-all and be-all of WotC. But if
you cut a little more space for other stuff, I seriously doubt that you'd
lose subscribers. I don't buy that as an excuse to short-change other
games.
Besides, you might want to read the rest of my message; the comment
on the Duelist is only part of the whole picture. It's not one thing, it's
a consistent lack of perceived support across all of your advertising and
customer support venues.
[ quoted text not captured ]
js...@bev.net (Joseph Cochran) wrote:
> So? I know that Magic is the end-all and be-all of WotC. But if
>you cut a little more space for other stuff, I seriously doubt that you'd
>lose subscribers. I don't buy that as an excuse to short-change other
>games.
> Besides, you might want to read the rest of my message; the comment
>on the Duelist is only part of the whole picture. It's not one thing, it's
>a consistent lack of perceived support across all of your advertising and
>customer support venues.>--
>| If you've got a hot lead on a new | *--Joe--*
>| PC game, call the announce line at | js...@vt.edu
>| ** csi...@vt.edu ** | http://hci.ise.vt.edu/~jsciv/
>+-------------------------------------+----------------------------------
>"So ... What goes on the cards???" -- Anon.
Actually I feel current advertising is where they show the strongest
support.
Rory