Point comparisons
nikola...@gmail.com
created and remembered something about the disciplines and capacity
etc.
Then I looked at two of the new Inner Circles and was wondering a bit:
Rafael de Corazon, 11, AUS CEL DOM OBF PRE, Toreador, 4, [KoT]
Camarilla Inner Circle: (4 votes) Any vampire contesting Rafael`s
title must yield during his or her untaps phase. +2 bleed.
Mistress Fanchion, 11, AUS CEL DOM OBF THA VIC, Tremere, 4, [KoT]
Camarilla Inner Circle: (4 votes) Mistress Fanchion may search your
library (shuffle afterward) for any minion card and move that card to
your hand as a +1 stealth action. +2 bleed.
Assuming that the vampires are meant to be relatively balanced (you
are paying 11 pool for each) it seems that Rafaels "yield" ability is
"worth" Fanchions ability PLUS a superior out of clan discipline? He
has 5 discs at superior and has all the inclan ones. She also has all
the inclan ones but has an extra SUP disc.
What is the logic behind this? (and is there one at all? hehe)
suolir...@gmail.com
Not all disciplines were created equal. In the case of an IC I'd take
PRE instead of CEL and VIC. The perceived point system (has there even
been any official statements about it's existence?) is a guideline,
not a rule. As it should be.
acheronni...@gmail.com
Rafael de Corazon = PRE, special
Mistress Fanchion = THA, VIC, special
Also keep in mind that game designers for unknow reason like tremere :>
acheronni...@gmail.com
About equality: Appius Claudius Corvus DOM OBT POT nec [!] cel [!] ,
seraph, +1 stealth. 10 cappacity. great design :>
suolir...@gmail.com
> About equality: Appius Claudius Corvus DOM OBT POT nec [!] cel [!] ,
> seraph, +1 stealth. 10 cappacity. great design :>
I can't tell what you're implying here. Appius is neither overpowered,
underpowered or comparable to an IC-member.
Kushiel
> The perceived point system (has there even
> been any official statements about it's existence?)
I don't think so. So far as I know, the point-based guidelines were
extrapolated from existing vampires and used to systematize vampire
creation for the Create-a-Clan rules. They're not meant to be a strict
set of rules for official crypt cards.
John Eno
Peter D Bakija
> I don't think so. So far as I know, the point-based guidelines were
> extrapolated from existing vampires and used to systematize vampire
> creation for the Create-a-Clan rules. They're not meant to be a strict
> set of rules for official crypt cards.
I could be on crack, but I'm pretty sure that at *some* point in time,
someone official (LSJ?) confirmed the existence of said formula, as
well as the variations in said formula (i.e. Jyhad>Sabbat>Now). I'm
also pretty sure that it was also confirmed that the design team
didn't feel completely beholden to the formula, and would break it at
times.
That being said, I'm also kind of at a loss as to why Falchion (12 in
disciplines, +2 bleed, strong special) and Corazon (10 in disciplines,
+2 bleed, highly conditional special) were made in the same factory.
I'm also a little unclear on the small vampires with random abuse
built in; I can certainly see that it was worth tweaking up the
generic 4 caps (see: Slag vs Sammy), as generic 4 caps tend to not see
that much play IME, but why does Bethany Ray, say, have a brutal
disadvantage attached to her for no compensation (it isn't like there
aren't many other 4 caps with PRE and another inferior discipline
without disadvantages)
-Peter
James Coupe
LSJ has said several times that he doesn't use the points system as a
ruling principle for his designs, and that he tries to look at his
designs in the round.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/bcca290f86cca27e
A vampire is designed (clan, capacity, disciplines, special). That
design is then checked to get a rough guess at the balance of the
card (to see if it's in the ballpark) - the system measures an
artificial property that attempts to mimic the too-vague-to-be-
concretely-measured property of "power" or "utility". For the most
part, for "real" vampire designs, the artificial property is
equivalent to the power. But degenerate examples can be created to
illustrate that the two properties are not truly equivalent.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
Orpheus
You don't find a 10-Cap without a title, a stealth bonus (that better 9-caps
have) and 2 poor inf out-of-clans (both of which are underwhelming in inf,
especially necro) to be underpowered ? Seraph is good, but isn't there,
like, a 5-Cap Lasombra with that trait ? Really, Appius would be an
excellent 8-Cap (just compare to Gratiano...), an ok 9-Cap, but stinks as a
10-capper.
Orpheus
--
"Cynicism isn't maturity. Callousness isn't strength. Pretending you
don't care so you don't have to try isn't "winning" What you do with
your life matters."
Luther Manning.
suolir...@gmail.com
> You don't find a 10-Cap without a title, a stealth bonus (that better 9-caps
> have) and 2 poor inf out-of-clans (both of which are underwhelming in inf,
> especially necro) to be underpowered ? Seraph is good, but isn't there,
> like, a 5-Cap Lasombra with that trait ? Really, Appius would be an
> excellent 8-Cap (just compare to Gratiano...), an ok 9-Cap, but stinks as a
> 10-capper.
No, I do not personally find Appius underpowered.
Rehlow
Just guessing, but maybe LSJ has a limit of how many 4 caps with PRE
he wants within a group set. If said limit has been reached then any
new vamps within the group can still be made as a 4 cap with PRE as
long as they have a brutal disadvantage. Just a guess.
Later,
~Rehlow
Chris Berger
>
> > I don't think so. So far as I know, the point-based guidelines were
> > extrapolated from existing vampires and used to systematize vampire
> > creation for the Create-a-Clan rules. They're not meant to be a strict
> > set of rules for official crypt cards.
>
> disciplines, +2 bleed, strong special) and Corazon (10 in disciplines,
> +2 bleed, highly conditional special) were made in the same factory.
>
special and an extra superior discipline. Seems odd for no good
reason. At worst, Rafael coulda got like Obtenebration or Melpominee
or something similarly silly...
> I'm also a little unclear on the small vampires with random abuse
> built in; I can certainly see that it was worth tweaking up the
> generic 4 caps (see: Slag vs Sammy), as generic 4 caps tend to not see
> that much play IME, but why does Bethany Ray, say, have a brutal
> disadvantage attached to her for no compensation (it isn't like there
> aren't many other 4 caps with PRE and another inferior discipline
> without disadvantages)
>
Brutal? Seriously? It's just the usual clan-based +1 bleed that's
not even worth half a point. So it's 2 clans instead of one. I'm
failing to see how it's a major concern.
Peter D Bakija
> Yeah, regardless of point counts, Fanchion obviously has a way better
> special and an extra superior discipline. Seems odd for no good
> reason. At worst, Rafael coulda got like Obtenebration or Melpominee
> or something similarly silly...
Yeah, I'm kind of at a loss as to how that happened. I mean, yeah, I
can certainly see leeway in the vampire design, but that seems like a
pretty severe disparity.
> Brutal? Seriously?
Well, ok, "brutal" was probably the wrong word. But still, it is not
an insignificant disadvantage (most of the time, it is going to be
irrelevant, but once and a while she'll either be unplayable from the
start or she'll get you killed), and for what is an otherwise standard
vampire (a 4 cap with SUP, inf), it seems kind of unnecessarily harsh.
I mean, yeah, ok, between Slag and Bethany, you have a single balanced
vampire (i.e. one has an unexpected bonus, one has an unexpected
penalty), but it seems a little wonky to have both of them at the same
time, in a design sense.
I mean maybe Rehlow's idea that they wanted a limit on 4 caps with PRE
has some legs, but still, it seems weird on an individual basis.
-Peter
a.gyh...@gmail.com
> Yeah, I'm kind of at a loss as to how that happened. I mean, yeah, I
> can certainly see leeway in the vampire design, but that seems like a
> pretty severe disparity.
I dont think you can really do a straight Vampire A vs. Vampire B
comparision like that and try to guess
a design desicion. You have to take into account the same variables as
LSJ does. On the top of my head I can think
they look something like this:
1) The X clan has generally better Y clan so they need a weaker Big
Badass Vampire to balance things out.
2) Clan X was better in Set Z, so to balance the groups out, Clan X
therefore gets a little nip in the bud.
3) Flavour of the set/specific vampire/voodoo in the basement
4) Discipline Y3 gets a cool new card with a unique combination that
the Big Babass Vampire will have access to
in the at the moment inferior discipline setting, wooho going to be
sweet.
Stuff like this. Stuff we dont see or know at the moment.
If *I* was a game designer, this would be some variables I'd consider
at least :)
/A. Gyhlesten
http://intelliganism.blogg.se - VTES Strategic Nonsense
Peter D Bakija
> I dont think you can really do a straight Vampire A vs. Vampire B
> comparision like that and try to guess
> a design desicion. You have to take into account the same variables as
> LSJ does. On the top of my head I can think
> they look something like this:
Well, see, but you can for the vast majority of vampires in the game.
*Most* of the time, a given vampire of capacity X has the same amount
of stuff as a different vampire of capacity X. Which is why pretty
much all the 4 caps in the game have 3 points of disciplines (i.e. 3
inferiors or a superior and an inferior), for example. When you get to
the big vampires, things start getting a bit wonky as special
abilities are less easy to quantify, but in the case of Fanchon and
Rafael the difference is both obvious and significant, given how
Rafael's special is good but highly limited (i.e. it only has any
effect if Alexandra is in play) and Fanchon's as good and always
useful.
> 1) The X clan has generally better Y clan so they need a weaker Big
> Badass Vampire to balance things out.
> 2) Clan X was better in Set Z, so to balance the groups out, Clan X
> therefore gets a little nip in the bud.
> 3) Flavour of the set/specific vampire/voodoo in the basement
> 4) Discipline Y3 gets a cool new card with a unique combination that
> the Big Babass Vampire will have access to
> in the at the moment inferior discipline setting, wooho going to be
> sweet.
All of these might hold some sway once and a while, I'm sure. But
still, the vast majority of the vampires in the game are pretty
equivalent on a point for point basis. And Fanchon vs Rafael; well,
really, Fanchon vs all the other ICs--she seems to have a random extra
superior discipline for no good reason:
-Hardestat: 10 in disciplines, limited special, +1 bleed, +2 strength
-Adana: 11 in disciplines, good special, +2 bleed
-Josef: 9 in disciplines, good special, +1 stealth, +1 bleed
-Lutz: 9 in disciplines, good special, +2 bleed
-Rafael: 10 in disciplines, limited special, +2 bleed
-Fanchon: 12 in disciplines, good special, +2 bleed
Rafael and Hardestat have the same special and the same 10 points in
disciplines. And the tradeoff of +2 bleed vs +1 bleed and +1 strength,
while slightly in Hardestat's favor for my money, is still reasonable.
So they balance out. Same for Lutz and Josef, at least in theory.
Heck, and even Lutz and Rafael (Lutz has a powerful, generally good
special ability, so he loses a point in disciplines; Rafael has a
limited, only useful when someone else is playing Alexandra special
ability, so he gains a point in disciplines compared to Lutz). So
basically 5 of the 6 ICs all kind of balance out, at least on paper--
heck, even Josef fits the mold, on paper. Fanchon is a standout; she
should probably have 1 less superior discipline, at which point she'd
*still* be better than Rafael (who is balanced with all the other ICs)
but more reasonable.
One could argue that Fanchon was made over the top 'cause the Tremere,
uh, needed a bonus? Except that the Tremere are a reasonably strong
clan (they have Dominate, so by default, they are a reasonably strong
clan). Or some other arbitrary reason. But there aren't any to be
seen, really.
> Stuff like this. Stuff we dont see or know at the moment.
>
> If *I* was a game designer, this would be some variables I'd consider
> at least :)
Sure. But variables like this historically *haven't* been considered
to the point that Vampire X was quantifiably just better than Vampire
Y when they both cost the same.
-Peter
echia...@yahoo.com
Sure, Fanchon is pretty great, but you're underestimating some of the
other IC members:
Adana is at least on par with Fanchon. Fanchon has an extra discipline
point, but Adana's special is worth a lot more than Fanchon's.
As a floor, you have vampires who pay 1 less blood for cards that
require discipline X. These abilities are worth about one point in
practice (Horrock, Miller, Mitru, Omme, Una). Adana's ability works on
all combat cards (doesn't help with actions, action modifiers, etc.
but works on cards that require any discipline or no discipline at
all), so I would say that Adana's special is worth about two points
worth. [Footnote: the older, Create-A-Clan rules for a la carte
specials used to price "discipline X costs one less" at two points,
though it's obviously not the official rule.]
At the upper end you have Dragos, who pays 3 points for his special
(where he doesn't pay any blood cost at all for combat cards).
Fanchon's special is useful, but remember that there's a high
opportunity cost to tapping an 11-cap. So I'd argue that Adana's
ability is worth 2 points while Fanchon's is worth 1. Considering that
Fanchon has 12 discipline points and Adana has 11, the two are on par.
Lutz is also up there with a game-changing special. It really messes
up other political decks at the table (if I pass my votes it helps you
oust your prey) or lets him make really strong political decks
himself. That ability is easily worth 3 or 4 points. You can also
argue that the superior PRE costs him extra because of the immense
synergy it has with his ability.
??? In your comparison of Rafael vs Hardestadt you are comparing +2
bleed vs "+1 bleed and +1 strength" but it's actually +2 bleed vs +1
bleed and *+2 strength*. Hardestadt really makes Rafael look pretty
pathetic.
So the two factors that your assessment is missing is:
- More gradations in terms of specials. Fanchon and Josef have good
(average), one-point specials. But Adana and Lutz have awesome
specials so they should pay more. (Not all specials are created equal
- for example, specials that let you untap, often cost extra).
- And finally there's always the nebulous concept of synergy. Unless
you're actually LSJ, the best the rest of us can do is try and puzzle
things out the best that we can!
Peter D Bakija
wrote:
> Sure, Fanchon is pretty great, but you're underestimating some of the
> other IC members:
Not really--and the point is that Fanchon gets an extra 2 points of
discpline for no apparent good reason. And it isn't like she was weak
before she got an extra 2 points of discipline. And it isn't like the
extra 2 points of discipline is two redundant or really fringey
disciplines.
One can argue the relative merits of the vampires individually till we
are blue in the face, but the fact remains that vampires tend to
revolve around a concrete set of building principals, and when one of
them is notably outside the design curve, there tends to ether be a
specific reason or an error.
Is Fanchon wildly overpowered? No. Not at all. Arika still kicks her
ass as IC members go. But still, she has at least 2 extra points of
disciplines relative to Rafael for no good reason.
> Adana is at least on par with Fanchon. Fanchon has an extra discipline
> point, but Adana's special is worth a lot more than Fanchon's.
Adana is paying an extra point (relative to Fanchon) for her special.
It is certainly debatable if Adana's special is worth more than
Fanchons.
> Fanchon's special is useful, but remember that there's a high
> opportunity cost to tapping an 11-cap. So I'd argue that Adana's
> ability is worth 2 points while Fanchon's is worth 1. Considering that
> Fanchon has 12 discipline points and Adana has 11, the two are on par.
Fair enough.
> Lutz is also up there with a game-changing special. It really messes
> up other political decks at the table (if I pass my votes it helps you
> oust your prey) or lets him make really strong political decks
> himself. That ability is easily worth 3 or 4 points. You can also
> argue that the superior PRE costs him extra because of the immense
> synergy it has with his ability.
Sure.
> ??? In your comparison of Rafael vs Hardestadt you are comparing +2
> bleed vs "+1 bleed and +1 strength" but it's actually +2 bleed vs +1
> bleed and *+2 strength*. Hardestadt really makes Rafael look pretty
> pathetic.
Oh, sure. +2 strength. I knew that at the time :-) But still, arguably
a reasonable trade off.
In any case, it is certainly possible that Fanchon is fine and Rafael
is wildly underpowered. Either case, something is notably wrong
somewhere for no real good reason.
-Peter
echia...@yahoo.com
> > ??? In your comparison of Rafael vs Hardestadt you are comparing +2
> > bleed vs "+1 bleed and +1 strength" but it's actually +2 bleed vs +1
> > bleed and *+2 strength*. Hardestadt really makes Rafael look pretty
> > pathetic.
>
> Oh, sure. +2 strength. I knew that at the time :-) But still, arguably
> a reasonable trade off.
>
> In any case, it is certainly possible that Fanchon is fine and Rafael
> is wildly underpowered. Either case, something is notably wrong
> somewhere for no real good reason.
I think that's more likely the case (Rafael just sucks). Which
certainly fits the paradigm if you look at the Toreador crypt
selection the past few years.
I mean let's expand your analysis to include the Justicars:
- Dmitra: 9-cap, 9 in disciplines, good special
- Unmada: 10-cap, 10 in disciplines, *two* good specials
- Petrodon: 10-cap, 10 in disciplines, one good special, one
cornercase special
- Montecalme: 10-cap, 9 in disciplines, good special
- Gabrielle: 10-cap, 10 in disciplines, good special
- Mary Anne: 10-cap, 10 in disciplines, one good special, one
cornercase special
So Unmada, Mary Anne, Dmitra, and Petrodon are at the top of the heap.
Gabrielle falls a bit behind them. And Montecalme is at the bottom.
- So maybe Fanchon is above average to compensate since Gabrielle is
slightly below average?
- Why is Montecalme (the Toreador) missing a discipline point?
In fact, the "Why the Nosferatu Hate" thread should maybe really be a
"Why the Toreador Hate" thread:
- Why does Vasily get a disadvantage? Tara is much better and with no
disadvantage. Rake and Mustafa are also better.
- You know, Francois is the only Toreador Prince with all in-clan
superiors. Recent Princes have all had one of their superiors as an
out-of-clan (Fleurdumal had superior DEM but inferior cel, while
Epikasta has superior DOM but inferior cel). Even Klaus has inferior
auspex and Marcellus has really sh*tty disciplines (and no presence).
- Before KoT, the smallest Toreador with all in-clan superiors was 8-
cap (the crappy Muhandis (who also has an unnecessary disadvantage).
Then it's two 9-caps followed by most of the 10-caps. KoT offers a 7-
cap, an 8-cap, and a 9-cap. Before KoT, the Nos had two 8-caps and
four 9-caps. So actually the Nos have traditionally had cheaper access
to all in-clan superiors than the Toreador.
- The Toreador traditionally has wretched mid-caps. I still wince when
I think about the Blount sisters and also Lucina. Laecanus is good for
gun decks but is otherwise pretty bad. Lindsay isn't horrible but a
"SUP SUP inf" would be better. And Masdela is great for the Brujah -
not so hot for the Toreador
- Bethany Ray gets a crappy disadvantage. (Compare to Marla Kenyon,
Lumumba, and Loonar).
Peter D Bakija
<a7bb27b4-c928-48cd...@i18g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
"echia...@yahoo.com" <echia...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I think that's more likely the case (Rafael just sucks).
Heh. Certainly possible. When I looked at them all from the get go, it
made sense to me that Fanchon was 2 points stronger than everyone else.
But I can certainly see an argument that Rafael is just 2 points worse
than everyone else :-)
> I mean let's expand your analysis to include the Justicars:
>
> - Dmitra: 9-cap, 9 in disciplines, good special
> - Unmada: 10-cap, 10 in disciplines, *two* good specials
> - Petrodon: 10-cap, 10 in disciplines, one good special, one
> cornercase special
> - Montecalme: 10-cap, 9 in disciplines, good special
> - Gabrielle: 10-cap, 10 in disciplines, good special
> - Mary Anne: 10-cap, 10 in disciplines, one good special, one
> cornercase special
>
> So Unmada, Mary Anne, Dmitra, and Petrodon are at the top of the heap.
> Gabrielle falls a bit behind them. And Montecalme is at the bottom.
Ah, you might to be on to something...
> - So maybe Fanchon is above average to compensate since Gabrielle is
> slightly below average?
That seems like dubious design theory, but ok.
> - Why is Montecalme (the Toreador) missing a discipline point?
Hmm. The conspiracy comes to light...
> In fact, the "Why the Nosferatu Hate" thread should maybe really be a
> "Why the Toreador Hate" thread:
Bitter, bitter Nosferatu revenge!
> - Bethany Ray gets a crappy disadvantage. (Compare to Marla Kenyon,
> Lumumba, and Loonar).
I already covered that one somewhere else :-)
Peter D Bakija
pd...@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html
"It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?"
-Gaff
Teeka
> > - So maybe Fanchon is above average to compensate since Gabrielle is
> > slightly below average?
>
> That seems like dubious design theory, but ok.
>
Is it? I mean, as stated by you in this thread, it's real tough to get
all vamps on the same 'level' to be equally strong once you get into
specials. But it's a real bad thing (IMHO) to make clan X way better
on the whole than the others.
So if you know that (after all your efforts to create all equal) clan
X clearly has the top vamp of level Y, you might deliberately give
clan X (a bit of) the shaft on level Z. So even though not all vamps
are on par with each other, at least you didn't overpower a clan on
the whole.
Seems perfectly reasonable to me. See A. Gyhlesten's list of design
points no 1 and 2 as well. But I'm sure LSJ will never officially
comment on this so, well, it'll always just be speculation.
Peter D Bakija
> Is it? I mean, as stated by you in this thread, it's real tough to get
> all vamps on the same 'level' to be equally strong once you get into
> specials. But it's a real bad thing (IMHO) to make clan X way better
> on the whole than the others.
Yes, but vampires aren't stapled together as a group--making Vampire X
really good and balancing it out by making Vampire Y awful is easily
remedied by by, ya know, never ever using Vampire Y. Which just makes
Vampire X too good with no noticable cost.
Yeah, I realize that some folks are really attached to clans as a
unit, but they don't really need to operate as such.
It's kind of like if a clan was given 2 master cards:
Card A: All Vampires of clan X get +2 bleed.
Card B: All Vampires of clan X get -2 stealth.
And then expecting that Card B will balance out Card A. But if you
just don't use Card B, Card A is just awesome.
-Peter
a.gyh...@gmail.com
> Yes, but vampires aren't stapled together as a group--making Vampire X
> really good and balancing it out by making Vampire Y awful is easily
> remedied by by, ya know, never ever using Vampire Y. Which just makes
> Vampire X too good with no noticable cost.
Now you're thinking like a power gamer and not a game developer.
Vampire Y in your example might be watered down for several reasons,
among them:
- Vampire X is really good and of the same clan, therefore you cant
make Vampire Y equally strong to not tilt everything in favour of that
specific clan/sect/neighbourhood.
- Vampire Y's specific discipline set might be more common so he/she
has more options in friends and therefor needs a bit more tuning.
- Vampire Y's clan or sect cards (present or future) would make
vampire Y totaly nuts if he/she was as powerfull as vampire X.
Theres a ton of variants on these three points. You cant really
separate two individual vampires and compare them to each other
outside of the entire games groupings (or their select group number,
if you will) and try to
make sense of it that way since the game developer isnt doing that. It
is my firm belief that LSJ design a specific vampire in context of the
game, not in comparision to vampire X. At least not as a deciding,
final factor in
the design of a vampire. Of course it should have some value in this
process, but I cant wrap my head around how insane it would be to
figure out all the factors and thread lightly because you might screw
something up. :D
These inconsistancies has always been in the game, compare poor Harrod
to Arika. Yes Rafael is underpowered by several clicks to Mistress,
there has to be a logical reasoning though. The interesting part in
this journey is to find out what it is. At least for me :)
a.gyh...@gmail.com
disciplines in terms of what cards are available. When I flip through
some high capacity vampires that lacks fortitude I emidiatly start
thinking "oh man, if this dude would have had fortitude he would be
totaly playable". Presence/Dominate weenies seem to be taxed by their
low capacity and good disciplines, a lot of the new guys have some
sort of drawback or whatnot.
Chris Berger
>
> These inconsistancies has always been in the game, compare poor Harrod
> to Arika. Yes Rafael is underpowered by several clicks to Mistress,
> there has to be a logical reasoning though. The interesting part in
> this journey is to find out what it is. At least for me :)
>
It's not at all a given that there "has to be a logical reasoning."
Was there a logical reason that Harrod sucks and Arika is basically
broken? None that I can see. Is there a logical reason that Tortured
Confession and Twisting the Knife got printed? Or the Elixir of
Distillation in Twilight Rebellion? Or The Oath in KoT?
Kushiel
> Now you're thinking like a power gamer and not a game developer.
Game designers have to think like power gamers; otherwise, they end up
designing games that are easily broken by power gamers.
John Eno
Peter D Bakija
Game developers need to think like "power gamers"; this is a CCG and
not an RPG. It needs to be balanced to work. So components need to
have a legitimate cost:effect scale. Which thankfully, this game is
generally pretty good at (to see a game where there was not a
legitimate cost:effect scale, look to original Rage...) Which is why
when something falls out of the realm of reasonable the cost:effect
scale, people tend to notice.
> Vampire Y in your example might be watered down for several reasons,
> among them:
>
> - Vampire X is really good and of the same clan, therefore you cant
> make Vampire Y equally strong to not tilt everything in favour of that
> specific clan/sect/neighbourhood.
But again, that doesn't work, in terms of actual balance. Watering
down Vampire Y to balance out Vampire X doesn't do anything other than
make Vampire X too good and Vampire Y not get used. Trying to balance
out vampires by clan doesn't actually work, as you aren't compelled to
use vampires with their clan mates. If you are making a board game,
where you have a selection of units, and you have to use all of them,
and some of them are really good and others are kind of crappy to make
up for it, that works fine, as you have to use all of them at once
anyway. If you are making an RPG, where some members of a group are
super powered and others are weak to compensate, who cares, as it is
an RPG, and traditional concepts of game balance aren't real
important. But in a collectible card game, where players pick the
strongest units and ignore the weak ones, that doesn't actually work.
> - Vampire Y's specific discipline set might be more common so he/she
> has more options in friends and therefor needs a bit more tuning.
> - Vampire Y's clan or sect cards (present or future) would make
> vampire Y totaly nuts if he/she was as powerfull as vampire X.
These are all possibilities that get factored in, I'm sure. But still,
when something is wildly out of whack, it is noticable. Which is why
Judah is noticably extra bad, for example.
> Theres a ton of variants on these three points. You cant really
> separate two individual vampires and compare them to each other
> outside of the entire games groupings (or their select group number,
> if you will) and try to
> make sense of it that way since the game developer isnt doing that.
But see, again, you can. And you have been able to since the day the
game was released. Again, not everything needs to slavishly be stapled
to the concrete point scale, but if is something is wildly over or
under the curve, it is both noticable and on some level problematic
> It is my firm belief that LSJ design a specific vampire in context of the
> game, not in comparision to vampire X. At least not as a deciding,
> final factor in
> the design of a vampire.
Sure. But would it be ok to make a 3 cap vampire with POT, FOR, CEL,
DOM, who is a Prince and has no disadvantage? Even if the same clan
got saddled with an 8 cap with pot, cel, vic, tha, qui, nec, and -1
stealth?
> These inconsistancies has always been in the game, compare poor
> Harrod to Arika.
Sure. But at least in theory, they are balanced, in terms of overall
abilities. They both have 10 points in discplines, IC title, +2 bleed,
and a special ability. Yeah, Arika's special ability is really good
(although arguably conditional, as if your prey has no locations, it
is useless...), and Harrods is trash. And Arika has fantastic
disciplines, and Harrod's are kind of lack luster. But in an absolute
design sense, they aren't that far off, cost wise. If you are going to
compare Arika to Harrod, you might as well just compare the Ventrue
(who have an incredibly powerful in clan discipline spread) and the
Nosferatu (who don't) and you'll find the same thing--Roland Lusarian
(? the 4 cap with dom, pre, for) is generally just better than Sammy
(4 with pot, ani, obf), as Roland's disciplines tend to be more
useful. But they are still balanced, design wise.
> Yes Rafael is underpowered by several clicks to Mistress,
> there has to be a logical reasoning though.
Yeah, see, this is not necessarily the case. It could just have been
overlooked. Or a bad decision. Or an accident.
-Peter
Peter D Bakija
> Something I've been thinking about though is if LSJ is thinking about
> disciplines in terms of what cards are available.
Well, sure. Which is why, say, Potence and Animalism (for example)
have gotten a slew of really good cards as the years progress, while,
say, Dominate hasn't really gotten anything more effective than the
cards they got in Jyhad. You can't really fix what vampires have
Animalism, but you can fix Animalism (which is just an example--
Animalism is really good these days, but in Jyhad, it was arguably one
of the weakest disciplines).
> Presence/Dominate weenies seem to be taxed by their
> low capacity and good disciplines, a lot of the new guys have some
> sort of drawback or whatnot.
No they don't. Vampires pay the same "cost" for Presence and Dominate
as they do for anything else. Yeah, Bethany Ray got arbitrarily
whacked, but there are 3 or 4 other 4 caps with PRE in that group
pair that didn't. And the 2 caps with pre and dom (ignoring the
Caitif, as they are disadvantaged by policy) are the same as all the
other 2 caps without pre and dom. And the 3 caps. And the 4 caps. And
the 5 caps. And everyone else.
-Peter
a.gyh...@gmail.com
> not an RPG. It needs to be balanced to work. So components need to
> have a legitimate cost:effect scale. Which thankfully, this game is
> generally pretty good at (to see a game where there was not a
> legitimate cost:effect scale, look to original Rage...) Which is why
> when something falls out of the realm of reasonable the cost:effect
> scale, people tend to notice.
D'oh, totally messed up that sentence there. What I ment to say was
that you cant only think of
terms of power gaming, since then it will sooner or later become a
race to the biggest nuke and
everything will be redicilously overpowered (like, for example, the
Doomtrooper cardgame ended up *sadface*)
or everything is more or less alike in game play terms. Resonable
cost:effect doesnt necessarily mean that everything needs
to be within 5% of each other :)
> But again, that doesn't work, in terms of actual balance. Watering
> down Vampire Y to balance out Vampire X doesn't do anything other than
> make Vampire X too good and Vampire Y not get used.
*snip*
> But in a collectible card game, where players pick the
> strongest units and ignore the weak ones, that doesn't actually work.
Then why not just reprint Arika instead of designing new ones that
are, essentialy, worse 11 cap
than the best one?
Why are people playing (and winning tournaments) with Eze?
> But see, again, you can. And you have been able to since the day the
> game was released. Again, not everything needs to slavishly be stapled
> to the concrete point scale, but if is something is wildly over or
> under the curve, it is both noticable and on some level problematic
I think you need to expand a little bit about how it is a problem so I
understand your point, because it flew right over my head :)
> Sure. But would it be ok to make a 3 cap vampire with POT, FOR, CEL,
> DOM, who is a Prince and has no disadvantage? Even if the same clan
> got saddled with an 8 cap with pot, cel, vic, tha, qui, nec, and -1
> stealth?
Extreme comparision is extreme :)
But no, the example you give would bend the rules too much
(Doomtrooper complex) and would turn the game into an uninteresting
game to play.
> Sure. But at least in theory, they are balanced, in terms of overall
> abilities. They both have 10 points in discplines, IC title, +2 bleed,
> and a special ability. Yeah, Arika's special ability is really good
> (although arguably conditional, as if your prey has no locations, it
> is useless...), and Harrods is trash. And Arika has fantastic
> disciplines, and Harrod's are kind of lack luster. But in an absolute
> design sense, they aren't that far off, cost wise. If you are going to
> compare Arika to Harrod, you might as well just compare the Ventrue
> (who have an incredibly powerful in clan discipline spread) and the
> Nosferatu (who don't) and you'll find the same thing--Roland Lusarian
> (? the 4 cap with dom, pre, for) is generally just better than Sammy
> (4 with pot, ani, obf), as Roland's disciplines tend to be more
> useful. But they are still balanced, design wise.
True. Which is why I personaly think that some disciplines should be
worth more
"points". It would turn into a rather complex debacle though and with
newly printed
cards that would up the powerlevel of a certain discipline drasticly,
you'd suddenly
sit with 4-5 overpowered vampires if they got more points based on a
former "bad" discipline.
> Yeah, see, this is not necessarily the case. It could just have been
> overlooked. Or a bad decision. Or an accident.
Also true. Neither of us can prove anything though, but it would make
me smile if it was a sneeze.
>No they don't. Vampires pay the same "cost" for Presence and Dominate
>as they do for anything else. Yeah, Bethany Ray got arbitrarily
>whacked, but there are 3 or 4 other 4 caps with PRE in that group
>pair that didn't. And the 2 caps with pre and dom (ignoring the
>Caitif, as they are disadvantaged by policy) are the same as all the
>other 2 caps without pre and dom. And the 3 caps. And the 4 caps. And
>the 5 caps. And everyone else.
You are absolutely right, it was just in my head. I was almost 100%
that the new weenies with at least
presence had some whacky flaws all over the place, but noes... :D
Peter D Bakija
> D'oh, totally messed up that sentence there. What I ment to say was
> that you cant only think of terms of power gaming,
Yeah, see, I don't think I actually understand what you mean by "power
gaming", especially considering how you reference Doomtrooper CCG as
if it *didn't* start out badly designed (which it did--it did not have
even a remotely well thought out cost:effect scale; everything in that
game was arbitrarily powered), which makes me not understand your
frame of reference. My point is simply that in a game like this (i.e.
a CCG where players are free to pick and choose things that are good
from things that are bad), resources need to fit a viable cost:effect
scale, regardless of all other factors. You can certainly shift in
direction A or B based on story or flavor or whatever, but at the base
of all card design, appropriate cost needs to provide appropriate
effect. Which is why, among other things, the vast majority of
vampires get an equivalent amount of stuff for an equivalent cost.
Yes, there is certainly ambiguity on terms of power levels, as they
pertain to disciplines--Dominate is clearly more effective in the
grand scheme than, say, Valeren. And yet vampires "pay" the same
amount for both. But at least in theory, disciplines should be
equivalent in overal effectiveness (which is fixed by making weak
disciplines stronger), so vampires should get the same amount of
disciplines for the same cost. Special abilities are problematic, as
there isn't really a good way to quantify a lot of them. But you can
try, and they usually do a good job of it.
> Resonable
> cost:effect doesnt necessarily mean that everything needs
> to be within 5% of each other :)
If the balance is correct, then it can and should be. And has nothing
to do with an arms race--arms races come specifically *from* a lack of
balance, not from trying to attain balance. An arms race is when in
the next expansion, all vampires have 2 extra points of disciplines
(so 3 caps get SUP, inf, inf instead of inf, inf or whatever)
arbitrarily, just 'cause the designers decided to make things more
exciting and make the new set extra sexy. That is what makes games go
bad. Not trying hard to make sure everything is balanced correctly.
> Then why not just reprint Arika instead of designing new ones that
> are, essentialy, worse 11 cap than the best one?
'Cause Arika is G2, and unless they go and decide to reprint all the
other G2 vampires as well, that is mostly pointless. And people like
things that are new. Arikia is likely way too good, and always has
been. Which is problematic. So rather than just continuing the
problem, there is an attempt to, at least in some sense, fix it. So
they make new IC members (so you can play a Ventrue IC without having
to play Arika) and specifically (if obliquely) hose Arika at the same
time. Which is how this game tends to fix things in the long run (see:
Blood Doll vs Vessel).
> Why are people playing (and winning tournaments) with Eze?
I don't understand your question. If I were to take this as it is and
not try and read something into it, I'd say "'cause Eze is balanced,
like he is supposed to be".
> I think you need to expand a little bit about how it is a problem so I
> understand your point, because it flew right over my head :)
Vampires need to get equivalent stuff for equivalent cost. 4 caps all
get 3 points of stuff (SUP, inf or inf, inf, inf). If this scale is
ignored, vampires get out of whack. Which is bad for the game, as some
things are then just obviously better than others, which means the
overpowered things get used a lot and dominate play, and the weak ones
get ignored. If one clan arbitrarity got 2 or 3 points of extra stuff
on all of their vampires for no good reason, that would be a problem.
Yeah, the occasional outlier isn't a big deal (someone gets an extra
inferior discipline somewhere or someone gets a random disadvantage
somewhere like Bethany Ray or that new 7 cap Brujah with way too many
disciplines). But the attempt at balance is important. And with
standout units, like the super powerful IC members, it would make
sense to go out of the way to make them all balance out. Which is why
it is noticable that Fanchon is too powerful (or Rafael is too weak).
> Extreme comparision is extreme :)
> But no, the example you give would bend the rules too much
> (Doomtrooper complex) and would turn the game into an uninteresting
> game to play.
Yes. Agreed. But it is just a matter of scale.
> True. Which is why I personaly think that some disciplines should be
> worth more "points".
Which would make sense if the power level of disciplines were fixed
and immutable. If all disciplines were given different costs based on
their power level (i.e. Dominate was worth twice Potence which was
worth twice Valeren or whatever), then you could never make the
disciplines more powerful with cool new cards. It strikes me as far
more sensible to assume all disciplines are equivalent in power (and
as such, cost) adjust them as needed rather than freeze all
disciplines at one level of power.
> It would turn into a rather complex debacle though and with
> newly printed
> cards that would up the powerlevel of a certain discipline drasticly,
> you'd suddenly
> sit with 4-5 overpowered vampires if they got more points based on a
> former "bad" discipline.
Correct. Which is why that is a bad idea.
> Also true. Neither of us can prove anything though, but it would make
> me smile if it was a sneeze.
I'm not really trying to prove anything one way or the other about the
IC members. It strikes me as fairly evident that something is amiss
somewhere. Is it horrible? Hardly. But ya know, worth noticing. And
could be a sneeze just as much an intentional design :-)
> You are absolutely right, it was just in my head. I was almost 100%
> that the new weenies with at least
> presence had some whacky flaws all over the place, but noes... :D
If you looked only at Bethany Ray and the 2 cap Caitif who makes you
burn a pool when he enters play, then you'd totally be on to
something :-)
-Peter
a.gyh...@gmail.com
> Yeah, see, I don't think I actually understand what you mean by "power
> gaming", especially considering how you reference Doomtrooper CCG as
> if it *didn't* start out badly designed (which it did--it did not have
> even a remotely well thought out cost:effect scale; everything in that
> game was arbitrarily powered),
You need to set a basis of power, you know the medium good cards that
everything is benchmarked off, the crap rares, the filler vampires and
the mood and themathic cards (updated Phatagia, for example, isnt a
powerful card imo - a flavourfull one though). These cards might as
well have not been printed for a PG'er if they dont fill a very
specific purpose. We discuss an IC member that has 2 points less than
everyone and will most likely never see a tournament final, he may be
a brainfart or intentionaly worse than his compadres. If you only look
at him in the light that hes 2 points less valuable then the rest of
the IC's then you only view the power gamers side (as in: you want
every bit of point invested in a vampire to count).
About Doomtrooper: I think I saw through rose-tinted glasses, there
was actually 2:nd turn win-comboes in the base set even, the designers
battled that the wrong way though. Instead of banning stuff the next
expantions had more I-win-at-1minute stuff :D
> 'Cause Arika is G2, and unless they go and decide to reprint all the
> other G2 vampires as well, that is mostly pointless. And people like
> things that are new. Arikia is likely way too good, and always has
> been. Which is problematic. So rather than just continuing the
> problem, there is an attempt to, at least in some sense, fix it. So
> they make new IC members (so you can play a Ventrue IC without having
> to play Arika) and specifically (if obliquely) hose Arika at the same
> time. Which is how this game tends to fix things in the long run (see:
> Blood Doll vs Vessel).
And Rafael need to compete with Anson, Anneke and Alexandra - a pretty
though nut to crack imo, those three vamps wrecked an entire
grouping worth of clan-mates (g3-4 and are about to waste 4-5 too, we
will see how that one turns out - but to this day I havent seen a
toreador all-star deck like Triple A). Im more and more inclined to
think hes a sneeze now =)
> I don't understand your question. If I were to take this as it is and
> not try and read something into it, I'd say "'cause Eze is balanced,
> like he is supposed to be".
Spot on.
> Vampires need to get equivalent stuff for equivalent cost. 4 caps all
> get 3 points of stuff (SUP, inf or inf, inf, inf). If this scale is
> ignored, vampires get out of whack. Which is bad for the game, as some
> things are then just obviously better than others, which means the
> overpowered things get used a lot and dominate play, and the weak ones
> get ignored. If one clan arbitrarity got 2 or 3 points of extra stuff
> on all of their vampires for no good reason, that would be a problem.
> Yeah, the occasional outlier isn't a big deal (someone gets an extra
> inferior discipline somewhere or someone gets a random disadvantage
> somewhere like Bethany Ray or that new 7 cap Brujah with way too many
> disciplines). But the attempt at balance is important. And with
> standout units, like the super powerful IC members, it would make
> sense to go out of the way to make them all balance out. Which is why
> it is noticable that Fanchon is too powerful (or Rafael is too weak).
Agreed.
> Which would make sense if the power level of disciplines were fixed
> and immutable. If all disciplines were given different costs based on
> their power level (i.e. Dominate was worth twice Potence which was
> worth twice Valeren or whatever), then you could never make the
> disciplines more powerful with cool new cards. It strikes me as far
> more sensible to assume all disciplines are equivalent in power (and
> as such, cost) adjust them as needed rather than freeze all
> disciplines at one level of power.
Very true.
> If you looked only at Bethany Ray and the 2 cap Caitif who makes you
> burn a pool when he enters play, then you'd totally be on to
> something :-)
Yeah, most likely my brain translated those two anomolies into "wow
guys dominate/presence weenies gets flaws nowadays!" :D
Somewhat related to this: Why isnt Christopher Houghton played more
than he is, if were looking for something to break the Triple A
mold? :o
A super-duper wall ability (giving yourself +2 intercept on top of
having auspex is pretty nuts), protean, dominate. Paying for first
strike with either ivory bow, AK-47 or an aggrevated hand? Wow.
/alex fnurp
http://intelliganism.blogg.se
Peter D Bakija
<520945b6-233c-43a2...@35g2000pry.googlegroups.com>,
a.gyh...@gmail.com wrote:
> You need to set a basis of power, you know the medium good cards that
> everything is benchmarked off,
Yes, ok, correct. I'm still not understanding the references to power
gamers.
> the crap rares, the filler vampires and
> the mood and themathic cards (updated Phatagia, for example, isnt a
> powerful card imo - a flavourfull one though). These cards might as
> well have not been printed for a PG'er if they dont fill a very
> specific purpose.
But they should--all cards should fit into the power scheme. Yeah, once
and a while there is going to be a misstep and some cards that are
really weak, but the attempt to make them all fit the appropriate cost
and effect system is what is important.
> We discuss an IC member that has 2 points less than
> everyone and will most likely never see a tournament final, he may be
> a brainfart or intentionaly worse than his compadres. If you only look
> at him in the light that hes 2 points less valuable then the rest of
> the IC's then you only view the power gamers side (as in: you want
> every bit of point invested in a vampire to count).
Yeah, still, not seeing the "power gamer" angle here. Not understanding
what you are talking about. I mean, I'm familiar with the term (although
it has been a really long time since I have seen it come up in the
context of VTES), but really, I'm completely not understanding what you
are trying to convey by referencing them here.
I'm viewing the IC member that has 2 points less of disciplines than
everyone else with the same light that I look at all the cards in the
game--things should get the the same effect of the same cost. It is just
like if there was a new potence card that was 1 blood for Hand of Melee
Weapon strike at +1 or +2 damage. Which is just strictly worse than
Undead Strength. I'd look at that and say "This card is strictly worse
than Undead Strength. Why does it exist?" I look at Rafael and say "this
card is missing some stuff. Why is it like that?"
> About Doomtrooper: I think I saw through rose-tinted glasses, there
> was actually 2:nd turn win-comboes in the base set even, the designers
> battled that the wrong way though. Instead of banning stuff the next
> expantions had more I-win-at-1minute stuff :D
Ah, see, yeah, I didn't spend a lot of time with Doomtrooper, but I
played it some, and it was clearly of the school of Star Trek the Next
Generation CCG card balance--you could use Ensign Sito or Captain
Picard. Picard was just completely 100 times better, and they both had
the same cost (i.e. nothing but playing a card). That is bad game
design. Rage was very similar (although Rage was also really funny :-).
> And Rafael need to compete with Anson, Anneke and Alexandra - a pretty
> though nut to crack imo, those three vamps wrecked an entire
> grouping worth of clan-mates (g3-4 and are about to waste 4-5 too, we
> will see how that one turns out - but to this day I havent seen a
> toreador all-star deck like Triple A). Im more and more inclined to
> think hes a sneeze now =)
And compared to Alexandra, he is pretty lame. Which, as you note, lends
even more support to him being some sort of error.
> Spot on.
Yeah, see, more of me not understanding where you are coming from--you
are saying "Not everything needs to be balanced if it makes the game
more interesting" (or at least that is how I am understanding what you
are saying), and then backing that up by saying "See! Eze is balanced!"
which isn't an example of something being unbalanced, but ok 'cause it
is interesting. I think we are clearly talking past each other somehow.
> Somewhat related to this: Why isnt Christopher Houghton played more
> than he is, if were looking for something to break the Triple A
> mold? :o
I dunno--I see him get played once and a while, and he is good.