Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (
More info?)
On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 18:58:50 -0700, "Frederick Scott"
<nospam@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
>
>"Fabio "Sooner"" <fabio_sooner@NOSPAMterra.com.br> wrote in message news:f7sf01tctlhhpuob35v8ah5sdn7qbrvoei@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 15:08:27 +0100, "Orpheus"
>> <orpheus.13@ERASERHEADfree.fr> wrote:
>>
>>>"Fabio "Sooner" Macedo" <fabio@cohesp.com.br> a écrit dans le message de
>>>news: hr5701d1tvai8cppsgjah7n25ga490b0id@4ax.com...
>>>> On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 14:09:26 GMT, Daneel <daniel@eposta.hu> wrote:
>>>> >I disagree. When the designers have reached the limits of their
>>>> > creativity it is time to stop designing.
>>>>
>>>> I'd agree with it if the game was stalled in all its aspects - sales,
>>>> ideas for library cards, strategies available.
>>>> Don't think it's the case, though. What would be the alternative?
>>>> Releasing expansions without crypt cards, so we'd be stuck with the
>>>> same vampires but new mechanics/effects for disciplines and such...
>>>
>>>Or finding new alternatives.
>>
>> See, I'm nowhere near the camp that the game has reached the point
>> where there is nothing else to add. The whole paragraph above was
>> written under the assumption that some upper limit was somehow
>> reached.
>>
>> But still the game have some limits to consider when designing a new
>> card. Consider library destruction. It was introduced not a long time
>> ago and it still bothers some players. Any new strategy to be added
>> has to be not disrupting, in accordance with the scenario the game is
>> based in, and should not case players to thing that V:TES is headed
>> toward anything that could downgrade existing strategies very clearly.
>
>Huh?!? OK:
>--DISCLAIMER--
>The following is written as a response to the that comment that, "Any
>new strategy to be added has to be not disrupting, in accordance with
>the scenario the game is based in,..." It may or may not have anything
>to do with grouping and I'm not trying to assert grouping is good or
>bad. I just think this comment misses the point about why library
>destruction, as a strategy, is bad to design into the game.
>--/DISCLAIMER--
>
>First of all, you need to get your vocabulary cleaned up.
>I'm not sure what you mean by "disruption".
To simplify, I was just pointing out that this strategy is not well
accepted since it was introduced on V:TES. Anything new brought out
during the design/playtesting process could be regarded a bad move as
well, so this in itself limits the scope - the ideal is to release
cards/strategy that should be acceptable for most players if not all.
That's all what I'm saying about grouping in this thread: some limits
must be considered, so once in a while we'll have options/sligthy
altered versions for the same old ideas.
About the word "disrupt", maybe it was just a bad choice of words.
Myself, I've been there, done that in library destruction and find it
boring. Never spent much time thinking about the strategy itself
because its *boring*. I don't need any more disincentive to play it
since V:TES is my main hobby, so I just want fun when playing it, even
during tournaments.
That word has little
>relevance that I can think of when used in the context of what
>strategies or tactics should or should not be supported in VtES.
>To "disrupt" tends to suggest interference with another player's
>defense (means of remaining in the game) or offense (means of ousting
>prey and thus making progress towards winning the game). Rush combat,
>as an easy example, clearly does both. So a statement that begins,
>"Any new strategy to be added has to be not disrupting..." ignores
>the reality of the game since it was invented.
>
>Library destruction can not be deemed evil by any conceivable
>definition of the term "disruptive". If anything, it's LESS
>"disruptive" than many stratigies given that its victim has a
>completely free hand to operate normally until a specific point is
>reached when his library is exhausted. In fact, if the predator is
>expending most or all of his offensive resources on just library
>destruction, if anything, the problem caused is that the prey has
>TOO free a hand since he isn't getting otherwise attacked by his
>predator which would be normal by comparison. If anything, the
>problem with pursuing a library destruction offense is that it
>unbalances the board by being too UNdisruptive. (Bah. Enough. I
>think I've made my point.)
>
>The problem with library destuction is just that it doesn't work
>very well as a strategy, period. Most all strategies for winning,
>even the highly defensive ones, involve destroying the prey's pool
>directly or his resources for defending his pool (then destroying it
>directly by cruder means), and moving on. Once your prey's been
>ousted, you take over the job of ousting his prey, which should be
>already partially digested by that time so you don't start from
>scratch. But with library destruction, it doesn't work that way.
>You go through all your prey's library cards, run him out, then get
>him either with Brinksmanship or just by the disadvantage cause by
>his lack of library (which could still be quite difficult). In
>any event, however you get him you are then faced by the challenge
>of starting nearly from scratch on the next player. Presumedly,
>your grandprey has gone through some of his library but unless it's
>taken you a long time to oust your first prey, he should still have
>a pretty sizable chunk of his library left. If you have taken a long
>time, then he's had a lot of time to make progress on his position
>and may well have made some ousts (or be very near one) by now.
>
>This all causes two distinct problems for game balance:
>1) It's not a very attractive strategy to the user. With the library
>destruction cards available to those pursuing the strategy, it's
>unlikely to get more than one oust in a game and even getting one is
>not very easy;
>
>and 2) When it doesn't work - which is often, it often cripples the prey
>in favor of third parties. Particularly, the predator's predator (who
>may well find his grandprey near out of library about the time he starts
>in on the latter) and the prey's prey, who may reap the rewards of having
>no pressure on him if the prey starts desparately attacking backwards to
>end the library destruction as soon as possible (and sometimes just out
>of spite).
>
>In short, the reason library destruction is intensely dislike is for the
>same reason as Anarch Revolt strategies: they tend to throw a game way
>out of kilter.
>
>Fred
>
>spoiling for a different debate - one that I find more intruiging
>
best,
Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
V:TES National Coordinator for Brazil
-----------------------------------------------------
now a "luminary", whatever it means:
http://www.thelasombra.com/WhosWho/fabiomacedo.htm
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram