What decks are you sick of seeing?
librarian
NG)? Maybe it's in your playgroup; maybe you see it all the time at
tournaments; maybe it keeps showing up in your JOL/Lackey games.
Follow-up question: What have/will you do about it?
chris
brandonsantacruz
Mostly, I dislike No Secrets from the Magaji. I usually don't play a
dedicated S&B deck, but when I see one of these I really wish I was.
The usual out-actioning and tap & bleed strategies don't really work.
What do I do against it? Fuck No Secrets. I play Pentex, DI,
Seduction, Sleeping Mind, Block Fails, and unblockability.
Occasionally, I play a deck that provides a solid beat-down, just to
keep the No Secrets + Sniper Rifle crowd on their toes. Thankfully I
don't see this sort of deck often. But I'm ready....
Brandon
Juggernaut1981
One of our playgroup was playing a modernised version of AAA. To
remedy that I've built a Trochomancy Deck, haven't had the chance to
properly use it on the AAA deck, but it's waiting for that moment.
Other decks I have specifically built to rort the Metagame was "You
only do so if I agree" which was a Ven-Anti wall deck that not only
called votes but turned around and denied other people the chance to
pass their votes (which was a BIG part of the Metagame a while ago,
particularly a !Tor Vote'n'Bloat). Loyalist, Auspex, For-prevent,
Dominate Bleed w/ Moderate votes, G2/3 !Ven.
Generally I don't target a single deck, I tend to push against the
metagame itself.
Rehlow
!Ven block, prevent, lunge if the opportunity arises deck.
I mostly just complain about the deck type. ;) I did start a newsgroup
post to get ideas how to beat it. Some ideas I've implemented, but
some of the decks I like to play just die to a !Ven style deck. :(
Later,
~Rehlow
Kevin M.
> What decks are you sick of seeing in games (as opposed to posted
> on the NG)? Maybe it's in your playgroup; maybe you see it all the
> time at tournaments; maybe it keeps showing up in your JOL/Lackey
> games.
The only thing that really bothers me is seeing someone running
a deck which has either 4th or 5th discipline Dominate or a deck
with bolted-on Dominate, just for the Govern+Conditioning and
Deflection.
Seriously, just run without the Dominate and find uses for those
cards you never use because you're addicted to Dominate.
> Follow-up question: What have/will you do about it?
Try to convince the player what "fun" is, and that Dominate isn't it.
Although if it's a new player, I give them much more leeway.
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017
_angst_
> Seriously, just run without the Dominate and find uses for those
> cards you never use because you're addicted to Dominate.
>
You know that accusing someone of being addicted to Dominate is about
the same as accusing someone of being addicted to oxygen :(
//Alex
_angst_
Not sure I'm sick of any particular deck. I despise bad decks that
don't pack enough punch to oust and I'm really really sick of bad play/
players. Those are the main two things killing this game for me.
For the follow-up I try to avoid playing games against bad decks/
players. And if I do I try to give them a piece of my mind about what
they need to focus on to win.
//Alex
Demnogonis Saastuttaja
nothing but sit. Also pathetically weak decks that can't do anything.
The game must go on, I don't have the patience to sit through nothing
and more nothing.
More though than any decks I dislike some specific things about the
game, like certain kind of hard locks you can easily achieve against
something. Scourge of Enochians blows up weenie decks for practically
free and is practically impossible to stop. Weenie decks are pretty
damn difficult to deal with with some big cap rush decks, I'd say if
the weenie deck is your predator you are toast. Many rush decks can't
also deal with allies because of Taste of Vitae having a pretty dumb
wording and because of FBI, thank god MoM isn't in the game anymore
though, those aggro-immune wraiths, ghosts and whatnot, Unleash Hell's
Fury and the never-ending stream of cards that are just designed to
easily shut down rush decks... Permanent intercept like Unmasking for
creating those cool situations where nothing ever happens because
actions are impossible.
I have been in some damn boring games lately for many various reasons.
An inherent flaw in this game is that there's a very high chance of
running in to something you have absolutely zero chances against.
Unless you're playing a pretty good toolbox deck, which is the
archetype I like the most for that reason.
Demnogonis Saastuttaja
Yes, and I find I don't have the patience to explain for 15 minutes
why you shouldn't do something. So just mess up your game and mine,
crosstable if you so wish, GG.
Curevei
Any deck I've seen before?
I don't really have a problem with even decks that do things that are
painful, e.g. Slaughterhouse, once. It's the more than once on many
decks I'm not fond of. But, the more unexpected the deck is, the less
likely repetitive play might be irksome. I'm this way with my own
decks. I rarely want to play one of my own decks more than once on a
given day. Yet, if the deck doesn't show itself too much in a first
play, a second play is okay.
This problem can be solved by having lots of decks at hand for both
myself and for others to borrow.
Having said the above, our metagame has gotten repetitive in
particular ways. The two big metagame elements in the last 6 months
or so have been Salubri and Parity Shift. You would think Salubri
would metagame itself away due to the rule that shouldn't exist. But,
people haven't been building new decks all that quickly and the whole
bloodlines storyline had a big impact. What's funny about Parity
Shift is that I used to hardly ever see it because the playerbase used
to be less Cammie interested.
For Salubri, we keep talking about The Diamond Thunderbolt - I think
Brandon revealed one in some deck. I haven't gone that far, yet,
since the Salubri decks we see aren't hardcore steal. For Parity
Shift, I'm running Confusion of the Eye in every Obfuscate deck to
where I even killed one down your neck of the woods against Poole.
Regardless as to whether it's overpowered or not, I find the overuse
of this sort of card tiresome.
Why Parity Shift and not Govern, et al? Contrary to apparent intent
but pretty much true for almost all of the game's history, voting is
the least interactive portion of the game. Seeing any single vote
played ad nauseam is even worse than seeing, say, Kindred Spirits ...
okay, Kindred Spirits is pretty mindnumbingly boring, too.
Now, it's very easy to end up seeing certain cards as often or more as
I see PS since the game is dominated by a small percentage of cards
and, again, people don't tend to believe in the "I play this once in
my life" rule that CCGs "should" have. But, most blame on stale
environments is due to CCG management rather than players. After all,
how can you complain about somebody playing something strong?
Brum
Here, here.
Tiago
Demnogonis Saastuttaja
There, there.
JamesLinJr
constantly at NAC qualifier events. Not saying it is a moronic design,
but just reminds me you're a Magic player still. There's a good reason
I quit playing Magic 17 years ago..
Aaron Clark
them that much, but I do hate them. Saw quite a few at EC, and one
player in LA seems to like them. I am sick of any deck that uses a
lot of recursion tech. Recursion tech is generally so cheesy, it
makes me think of MTG.
I agree with Brandon's assessment of No Secrets decks, since they were
really popular in LA last year. NSftM was my most hated card for a
while until I just accepted that I either had to have a load of
stealth or punch-back if I ever wanted to get my undirected actions
through.
Peter D Bakija
> Dedicated stealth bleed, stealth bleed, stealth bleed.. seen them
> constantly at NAC qualifier events.
Well, here is the thing--dedicated stealth and bleed is still, what,
15 years in?, the most reliable deck to walk into a room with blind
and expect to get VP/GWs. Yeah, S+B decks can be foiled and hamstrung,
and can get shut down by any number of other strategies. But if you
are going to a qualifier and want to have the best chance of getting
enough GW/VPs to qualify, dedicated Stealth and Bleed is always going
to be your best choice.
Until that changes (and it never will due to the way that the game
works), dedicated Stealth and Bleed will always be seen constantly at
NAC events. Or any event as the case may be. Playing all the bounce
and rush in the world isn't going to change this.
-Peter
suoli
I don't see anybody denying the power of s&b. It's still boring. Being
a good qualifier deck doesn't change that.
Peter D Bakija
> I don't see anybody denying the power of s&b. It's still boring. Being
> a good qualifier deck doesn't change that.
Sure. But that a given deck is both consistent and good means that it
is going to show up. All the time. Boring or not. And there isn't
really anything to be done about it. I realize that people get sick of
seeing them. But they are going to continue to be there. Forever.
Especially at tournaments where people have extra incentive to do well
(i.e. Qualifiers). 'Cause fun/innovative/wacky/interesting decks? They
tend not to do so well in the grand scheme. And the boring old
reliable standards do. So people play them. And always will.
-Peter
Demnogonis Saastuttaja
or wall deck, though, boring or not, because it's easy to deal with
and lets the game progress somewhere.
brandonsantacruz
I actually did pull off Diamond Thunderbolt against a Spirit
Marionette AND Suddened Heidelberg in the same game with my Don Cruez
& Eurobrujah deck. I built it specifically to counter Salubri and it
didn't do so bad. I hate bringing out some vamp just to have them
stolen/broken before I can act.
> Why Parity Shift and not Govern, et al? Contrary to apparent intent
> but pretty much true for almost all of the game's history, voting is
> the least interactive portion of the game. Seeing any single vote
> played ad nauseam is even worse than seeing, say, Kindred Spirits ...
> okay, Kindred Spirits is pretty mindnumbingly boring, too.
Govern is a predictable mechanic. Enchant Kindred does it. Scouting
Mission. Bleed? Moving blood down? I can't even think of how many
cards/effects do this. Effects are slightly different between
cards(i.e. Social Charm vs Kindred Spirits), but it's something you
should always plan to encounter.
> Now, it's very easy to end up seeing certain cards as often or more as
> I see PS since the game is dominated by a small percentage of cards
> and, again, people don't tend to believe in the "I play this once in
> my life" rule that CCGs "should" have. But, most blame on stale
> environments is due to CCG management rather than players. After all,
> how can you complain about somebody playing something strong?
If you rule out new cards and can practically rule out banning
cards(because really, what is so broken that you can't deal with it at
this point?), how do you get the metagame to change? I think it may
involve making extra decks and borrowing decks from other players(ones
you haven't seen). It can be an inspiration to play something totally
different. For example, when I played with the Seattle play group in
my trip through there, I played a Tunnel Runner deck that caught my
eye. I may not have the cards for that, but it wouldn't too hard to
get them. Seeing other people play different decks can be inspiring,
too. In LA, I saw a lot more combat than I usually do. Not the
pointless, leave a smoking crater before you die combat, but combat
with a purpose.
Brandon
Juggernaut1981
wrote:
Metagames morph when players start bringing decks that exploit other
player's meta-weaknesses. If you see lots of S&B, start playing a
Ravnos Draba deck. If you see lots of Master/Recursion decks, start
playing Black Hand and remove the Gehenna cards... or Trochomancy
decks. If you see lots of Vote Decks, play !Ven Vote-Lockdown. If
you see lots of Wall Decks, start playing Bruise & Bleed... If you see
Powerbleed, pack your deck to the eyeballs with Archon Investigation.
If you see WeenieBleed, play Anthelios or Protected Resources Vote...
The one thing I've always liked about VTES is that for any given
decktype, there is usually an effective counter that doesn't gridlock
the game. You don't get that in MtG... there you tend to get about 4
or 5 NetDecks made of $30 rares.
Peter D Bakija
wrote:
> I'd much rather see a S&B deck than a master deck, parity shift deck
> or wall deck, though, boring or not, because it's easy to deal with
> and lets the game progress somewhere.
Yeah, I'm with you. I mean, yeah, ok, no one likes sitting down as the
first prey of a dedicated S+B deck, as you generally are going to get
wiped out (as that is how S+B decks tend to work--they are far from
certain to win a given table, but their first prey certainly is
unlikely to do anything other than fall over dead). But at least they
go forward (which I always appreciate) and can reliably win (which I
always appreciate). And they make the game go somewhere.
I really dislike sitting behind decks that that do nothing but defend
themselves and do very little to their prey (and unsurprisingly, decks
like this tend to make their prey win most of the time...). I'd much
rather sit in front of a dedicated S+B deck than behind a "maybe I'll
get 2VP for being the last guy at the table" wall/backwards rush deck
or something.
-Peter
suoli
Replying to a post about how boring s&b is by saying that s&b is
strong at qualifiers seems like a non sequitur to me. At least if it's
meant as a counterargument.
Peter D Bakija
> Replying to a post about how boring s&b is by saying that s&b is
> strong at qualifiers seems like a non sequitur to me. At least if it's
> meant as a counterargument.
Well, the original comment I was replying to was "I'm sick of seeing S
+B decks at Qualifiers". As Qualifiers are the place where you are
most likely to see S+B decks (for the reasons already mentioned), it
seems likely that there is no good solution or answer to this. Other
than not going to Qualifiers. Or just accepting that Qualifiers will
be filled with boring S+B decks.
-Peter
Haze
I'm sick of seeing Dominion decks when I'd rather be playing VTES!
(just a joke, I don't actually hate Dominion)
For a serious answer, I don't mind seeing decks or cards show up
often. If I notice a pattern, I'll try to metagame counter it. It only
seems natural to me.
Curevei
> Metagames morph when players start bringing decks that exploit other
> player's meta-weaknesses. If you see lots of S&B, start playing a
> Ravnos Draba deck. If you see lots of Master/Recursion decks, start
> playing Black Hand and remove the Gehenna cards... or Trochomancy
> decks. If you see lots of Vote Decks, play !Ven Vote-Lockdown. If
> you see lots of Wall Decks, start playing Bruise & Bleed... If you see
> Powerbleed, pack your deck to the eyeballs with Archon Investigation.
> If you see WeenieBleed, play Anthelios or Protected Resources Vote...
I only see this - playing a deck to win the metagame - happen in
incredibly insular environments. Sure, playing a few silver bullets
to handle problematic strategies is dirt common. But, actually
deciding what deck to play to trump the metagame? Maybe happens
somewhere, but I've never found a V:TES metagame so narrowly defined
that this makes any sense. Yes, I talk about it on a theoretical
level often enough, but then, I go play what I want to play.
> The one thing I've always liked about VTES is that for any given
> decktype, there is usually an effective counter that doesn't gridlock
> the game. You don't get that in MtG... there you tend to get about 4
> or 5 NetDecks made of $30 rares.
Yet, Magic and most other CCGs have much better defined metagames to
where winning the metagame produces better results. V:TES is the CCG
where metagaming is the least important since table politics can
always step in and decide tables. For other reasons, as well, such as
how cards are relatively much less powerful than in other CCGs,
metagaming isn't as important. So, I'm not sure what the point of
bringing up Magic is, unless it was to say that V:TES is more fun
because you can play what you want to play most of the time and not
have to metagame.
On a side note, regarding Peter's comment about stealth bleed always
being good, there's no actual requirement that anything always be
good. I consider it healthy for what is stronger in a CCG to change.
Getting back to metagaming to produce an interesting environment,
there's never been a good way to metagame against Dominate in all its
various incarnations as the cardpools simply haven't existed to where
Dominate ceased being a top tier option.
Peter D Bakija
> On a side note, regarding Peter's comment about stealth bleed always
> being good, there's no actual requirement that anything always be
> good.
Oh, sure. If there was a way to make S+B not always good? I'd be all
over it. Well, kind of.
I will defend the idea that S+B is actually good for the game. Again,
no one ever wants to be the initial prey of a dedicated S+B deck. As
you will likely will be wiped out before you get to do anything
regardless of the long term success of the S+B deck. Which sucks. But
in reality, that S+B decks exist and are played is good for the game.
As it makes games go forward and convinces people to not to be
complacent in regards to their deck's defensive capabilities along
with offensive capabilities.
That being said, I would like to see S+B be somewhat less good--I'm
sure there could be a way that S+B decks were still generally
effective and saw play, but weren't pretty much always the best option
for consistent VPs (something about making it so you couldn't bleed
for 5 at stealth with a 4 cap minion with inferior disciplines...).
But given the way the game works, that is unlikely to happen--the only
actual way to make S+B less good is to either make magic bullet
defenses (which certainly exist, but don't make S+B any less
attractive. They just make it so once and a while, you get hosed when
you are playing S+B. But still, in the long term, S+B is going to be
better than average) or change fundamental parts of the game. Which
isn't going to happen.
> I consider it healthy for what is stronger in a CCG to change.
Sure. And yet dedicated S+B has always been, and always will be, the
most consistently successful archetype across the board. I think the
second level strategies (i.e. everything that *isn't* dedicated S+B)
constantly cycles in and out of effectiveness and strength. Which is
nice, and I think what people like about the game--what is *almost*
really effective changes a lot and is very fluid, which is fun. But in
the end, dedicated S+B always will be the most consistently effective
strategy in the game. Which in some ways has always been a major flaw.
And in other ways helps keep the game working.
-Peter
AngryNorway
Juggernaut1981
> Constant Dominate stealth bleed decks in the playgroup.
Angry,
Just play a deck that attempts to block everything, then flicks it all
because you KNEW you were never going to actually successfully block.
12+ deflections, minions with superior dominate... barely do anything
else other than bloat out more guys...
Wedge
> What decks are you sick of seeing in games (as opposed to posted on the
> NG)?
Mine!
>
> Follow-up question: What have/will you do about it?
Make new decks?
Matt
Izaak
"librarian" <auct...@superfuncards.com> schreef in bericht
news:idkfit$grh$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> What decks are you sick of seeing in games (as opposed to posted on the
> tournaments; maybe it keeps showing up in your JOL/Lackey games.
I'm sick of decks that are afraid of dying and only defend themselves
instead of playing the game. In VTES you win the game by ousting your prey,
not by surviving your predator. I played 12 tables at the EC. On 9 of them
there was a walldeck. In exactly zero of those games the walldeck got more
than 1,5 VP.
I'm also sick of the Girls! deck, but that's mostly because apparently it
takes people AGES catch up with the decktype and they tend to just leave it
alone until it's unstoppable.
And finally, not a deck specifically, but I'm absolutely dead tired of
Villein+Giant's Blood. I think it's an utterly retarded gamebreaking combo
and -as someone else put it a few weeks ago- makes VTES into a game where
you roll a die to see who gets to start with 40 pool. I really think
something needs to be done here. In that respect, I'm also getting
increasinly annoyed with Villein+Lilith's Blessing. Not because it's as
gamebreaking as the Giant's Blood thing, but because it makes the game last
forever, which shifts the meta into a more defensive style with lost of
permanents which makes tables time. And timeouts are shit.
> Follow-up question: What have/will you do about it?
Well, I've mostly started playing more Suddens because people play more
masters in general and it can stop stupid Villein Combo's sometimes. I've
been trying to convince people that Aksinya on the tables means the deck is
dangerous, but it's hard to do so when you are sitting next to said deck.
Other than that I'm mostly playing decks that move forward and actually oust
preys. Getting your prey out of his comfort zone tends to speed up tables,
even if it's usually against you. Most decks are not really prepared to
randomly crosstable fuck the guy close to a VP anyhow. And even if you get
fucked over, at least it's better than sitting there for 2 hours doing
nothing.