Vampire Efficiency
XZealot
damage equal to its capacity in as many turns as it took to transfer
out.
What do you think?
Peter D Bakija
Seems like a reasonable rule. Whenever I get vampires burned up or
something, I say to myself "self, well, that minion cost me 4 pool,
and that minion already made my prey lose 6 pool, so not a horrible
loss..."
-Peter
Ruben Feldman
I'm not sure it's logical; the longer it takes to influence out a
vampire, the faster it should do stuff.
It's also not just about pool damage, ie. pool gain, damage prevention
(deflection/blocks/votes), torporing minions.
Further bringing out one minion could mean you didnt bringing out
another or just do something else with the pool (ally/master card/
equipment). you have to consider opportunity cost.
XZealot
> On Nov 9, 3:46 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > A good rule of efficiency in vampries is can it cause as much pool
> > damage equal to its capacity in as many turns as it took to transfer
> > out.
>
> > What do you think?
>
> I'm not sure it's logical; the longer it takes to influence out a
> vampire, the faster it should do stuff.
It's not that it should do stuff faster, but when it does do something
it should have proportionally greater impact.
> It's also not just about pool damage, ie. pool gain, damage prevention
> (deflection/blocks/votes), torporing minions.
You can't win if you don't oust your prey. Barring Brinksmanship, the
only way to do it is with pool damage.
Everything else is just a stalling tactic to get your to the point
that you can do enough pool damage to oust your prey.
> Further bringing out one minion could mean you didnt bringing out
> another or just do something else with the pool (ally/master card/
> equipment). you have to consider opportunity cost.
This is irrelevant to the individual efficiency of the minions that
you choose.
Kevin M.
I think that, if true, most larger minions are just awful. But isn't that
where disciplines (and the blood to power them) makes the difference?
Also, Auspex on the defense, or just defense in general, e.g. blocking
or deflecting an action, should be factored-in somehow.
Maybe having Auspex or dominate is worth so much to us players
since it follows a formula? e.g. large vampires without bounce suck.
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/
Please buy my cards! http://shop.ebay.com/kjmergen/m.html
librarian
Too many variables to parse this number.
best -
chris
Juggernaut1981
I'd be thinking this:
1- [(Vampire Cost - (Total Pool Damage to Prey + Pool Bloated From
THIS Vampire))/ Actions Taken]
Closer this gets to 1 the better.
bwross
> On Nov 9, 3:21 pm, Ruben Feldman <frub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It's also not just about pool damage, ie. pool gain, damage prevention
> > (deflection/blocks/votes), torporing minions.
>
> You can't win if you don't oust your prey. Barring Brinksmanship, the
> only way to do it is with pool damage.
But a vampire can earn it's keep without doing pool damage directly.
For example, if Anvil uses his "magic stick" to send Democritus to
torpor without blood before Democritus' player even gets a chance to
rescue blood from him... then Anvil has certainly earned his keep,
because he's made sure that Democritus cost the full 10 pool, instead
of an effective 4 after a 6 blood Minion Tap. Everything Anvil does
past that point is gravy.
Brent Ross
librarian
So, a vampire's efficiency is clearly game-state related, and thus we
can't get a "number" for each vampire, except during a game. So as a
rating tool, it's not very useful...
I.e. Enkidu in an obf dom bleed deck on turn 3 has a totally different
number than in a cel/for/pro rush deck on turn 10.
I guess what I'm wondering - what will this tell us we didn't already know?
best -
chris
Juggernaut1981
It's an experimental efficiency rating. You would only do this to
rate the efficiency of a vampire within a deck. Average out the
results over time and you would get the value of that vampire in that
deck. There is no real way to measure vampire efficiency without
including the library, and the best way to get a reliable amount is to
combine vampire + flow of library in a game situation.
XZealot
No, you are mistaken, and this is a common combat fallacy.
Knocking someone into torpor is meaningless, I love combat and I know
you are knocking 10 blood off the vampire and that sounds good and
all, but the investment of 10 pool is for the vehicle (i.e.
Democritus). Specifically Democritus can refill pretty easily via
Voter Cap. Most large vampires that are considered viable have access
to a method of doing so. So without burning vampire (i.e. removing the
investment), you really haven't done much except stall Democritus's
controller until he can refill (and more than likely Minion Tap it
back off).
Unless you permanently torpor the vampire (i.e. Pulled Fangs) or
remove the target vampire from play such as diablerie, banishment, or
Golconda, you are just treading water.
Kevin M.
> Knocking someone into torpor is meaningless,
> Unless you permanently torpor the vampire (i.e. Pulled Fangs) or
> remove the target vampire from play such as diablerie, banishment,
> or Golconda, you are just treading water.
You don't like Fame+Disarm then? ;)
XZealot
> XZealot wrote:
> > Knocking someone into torpor is meaningless,
>
> [snip analysis]
>
> > Unless you permanently torpor the vampire (i.e. Pulled Fangs) or
> > remove the target vampire from play such as diablerie, banishment,
> > or Golconda, you are just treading water.
>
> You don't like Fame+Disarm then? ;)
I like combat in case you didn't know.
Fame does pool damage, which is the whole point, but how much Fame do
you need to put into a deck to reliably draw it so that it is a
prominant ousting vehicle from a relavent point of the game?
You need 8 or 9 in reality. Let's call it like it is, You need 8 or 9
or more cards that do pool damage from Combat. So you put 4x Fames,
1x Tension in the Ranks, 2x Path of Lilith, 1x Dragonbound, and 1x
something else that I can't think of right now. Sure Path of Lilith
sucks, but what else are you going to use? More Fame? More Tension?
If you made Fame non-unique, then combat would be vastly better, but
that is another thread all together..... Combat just doesn't do pool
damage like S&B or Politics. So combat oriented vampires just aren't
as efficient at S&B vampires or Political Vampires and big vampirs
aren't as efficient as little vampires. Big Combat vampires are
orders of magnitudes less efficient than little S&B or Political
vampires.
my 2 cents
suoli
I think it's an excellent indicator of a given vampires pool damage
output/capacity ratio.
Are you making a V:TES bot or something?
Kevin M.
Thank you for the expanded definition of "treading water". ;)
Brum
I think two things:
You're on to something, although the human factor in the game makes it
hard to quantify like that.
Arika wins.
Cheers,
Tiago
XZealot
you get two prizes! One for derailing the thread and two for getting
me to participate!
XZealot
> XZealot wrote:
> > A good rule of efficiency in vampries is can it cause as much pool
> > damage equal to its capacity in as many turns as it took to transfer
> > out.
>
> > What do you think?
>
> I think that, if true, most larger minions are just awful. But isn't that
> where disciplines (and the blood to power them) makes the difference?
Nothing proved that more to me this year than attending the NAC where
it was high payload weenie decks left and right.
> Also, Auspex on the defense, or just defense in general, e.g. blocking
> or deflecting an action, should be factored-in somehow.
>
> Maybe having Auspex or dominate is worth so much to us players
> since it follows a formula? e.g. large vampires without bounce suck.
That's not really a formula, but rather a hypothesis that has been
proved true through years of experimentation.
orianice
lamest sentence ever
you can do with almost any vampire a very high number of pool damage
in one turn, just have a parthenon in play, put a fame on your prey,
give your vampire a fortitude skill, put 3 bleed retainers with freak
drives, bleed, then, freak drive, rush your prey's vampire, torporize
him, rescue him and repeat with all rush cards possible...
well ok it it not working in realty but you have seen the point. Why
would Ozmo be more efficient than Devin Bisley? they don't belong to
the same strategy.
I don't like the word efficiency here.
XZealot
If I was, then this would be the beginning of one.
XZealot
Thanks, but human element aside, and table tactics aside this is
looking at the potential of a single vampire.
XZealot
> On 9 nov, 21:46, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > A good rule of efficiency in vampries is can it cause as much pool
> > damage equal to its capacity in as many turns as it took to transfer
> > out.
>
> > What do you think?
>
> lamest sentence ever
I strive to excel. :)
> you can do with almost any vampire a very high number of pool damage
> in one turn, just have a parthenon in play, put a fame on your prey,
> give your vampire a fortitude skill, put 3 bleed retainers with freak
> drives, bleed, then, freak drive, rush your prey's vampire, torporize
> him, rescue him and repeat with all rush cards possible...
That requires, fortitude and 3 blood plus surviving combat, which "you
can NOT do with almost any vampire", especially since only 436
vampires out of 1308 have fortitude at any level (and don't forget Ian
Forrestal)
> well ok it it not working in realty but you have seen the point. Why
> would Ozmo be more efficient than Devin Bisley? they don't belong to
> the same strategy.
The are more efficient for exactly the reason that I gave.
....and they both can be in a wall deck and they both can stealth
bleed.
> I don't like the word efficiency here
What would you suggest?
Kevin M.
I didn't derail the thread in any way. I stayed on-topic.
XZealot
What was the topic again?
Kevin M.
If you -- and others -- believe in the odd notion that given a topic you
can't
ever expand that topic and widen the scope of the discussion to further
enhance understanding of the topic, then I'd suggest that you are short-
changing yourself and your capacity for learning, and that's a tragedy.
Ooops, derailed again. Don't reply, I'll just be dragging you along... ;)
XZealot
Welcome to my life! What a tragedy!
> Ooops, derailed again. Don't reply, I'll just be dragging you along... ;)
Ouch! my leg!
Kushiel
> Thanks, but human element aside, and table tactics aside this is
> looking at the potential of a single vampire.
I think that trying to ignore these things invalidates the whole
equation, because in actual play those are always going to matter as
much or more than any kind of reductive capacity/pool damage
calcuations.
Or in other, more succinct words:
On Nov 9, 4:31 pm, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote:
> Too many variables to parse this number.
John Eno
XZealot
> On Nov 10, 11:06 am, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > Thanks, but human element aside, and table tactics aside this is
> > looking at the potential of a single vampire.
>
> I think that trying to ignore these things invalidates the whole
> equation, because in actual play those are always going to matter as
> much or more than any kind of reductive capacity/pool damage
> calcuations.
See I disagree, because when you are choosing vampires for a deck you
are going to try to get the most efficient vampires for your deck.
Some vampires are very inefficient for what you have spent to get them
(i.e. Augustus Giovanni), where as some vampires are super efficient
(i.e. Anarch Convert).
Kushiel
> See I disagree, because when you are choosing vampires for a deck you
> are going to try to get the most efficient vampires for your deck.
...who aren't necessarily the vampires who can deal the most pool
damage in the least amount of time. If I'm selecting vampires for a
weenie Auspex deck, for example, pool-damage payload isn't going to be
the first feature I look for in terms of which vampires are the best
for the crypt.
I do agree that if your deck is nothing but go-forward killkillkill
direct damage, like weenie PRE or weenie DEM, your formula will be
useful. For every other kind of deck, I don't know that applying your
forumla is necessarily going to get you the best results.
> Some vampires are very inefficient for what you have spent to get them
> (i.e. Augustus Giovanni), where as some vampires are super efficient
> (i.e. Anarch Convert).
But that's not necessarily true in actual play. There are any number
of situations that I can think of, in which I might find myself
without any way to prevent myself from being there (because I can't
select which decks my opponents play), in which I can make much more
efficient use of Augustus than I can the Convert, to continue your
example.
John Eno
Brum
Human factor. This is a game with a strong component of Social
(Anthropologic) Science and Math Science.
That is why it's great.
Juggernaut1981
I think that you can basically only get a decent read on how efficient
a vampire is by play.
You can find a numerical quantity to describe that efficiency (like
the equation I suggested or by creating some kind of "rate of return"
concept) but it will be incredibly difficult in VTES to come to a
reliable value without doing it based on experimental value.
The efficiency of any vampire is basically: their ability to injure
your prey multiplied by a factor based on the 'extent' of the injury
over the amount of time it takes them to inflict those injuries and
adjusted by the cost to you.
The adjusted cost to you is also how well they protect your pool, if
they can reduce the cost of new minions (e.g. cheap allies, Menele's
Text, Mary's AutoEnchantDown, etc) and how well they slow down your
predator.
Most people don't play with straight Baali, because their efficiency
is comparatively low (high damage, high cripple factor, comparatively
few actions, big adjusted cost to their controller).
Getting a strict quantity on the adjusted cost to you is difficult and
varies depending on the deck as well. Menele in a Theft Combat or
VoterCap deck will be more in your favour because he will regularly
have the blood to transfer down. In a Bleed'n'Bash he may not have
the blood to fuel your minion gathering.
It's possible, but horrendous to do in advance. Just do the
experiments... play games.
bwross
> On Nov 9, 4:20 pm, bwross <bwr...@mail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 9, 4:27 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 9, 3:21 pm, Ruben Feldman <frub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > It's also not just about pool damage, ie. pool gain, damage prevention
> > > > (deflection/blocks/votes), torporing minions.
>
> > > You can't win if you don't oust your prey. Barring Brinksmanship, the
> > > only way to do it is with pool damage.
>
> > But a vampire can earn it's keep without doing pool damage directly.
> > For example, if Anvil uses his "magic stick" to send Democritus to
> > torpor without blood before Democritus' player even gets a chance to
> > rescue blood from him... then Anvil has certainly earned his keep,
> > because he's made sure that Democritus cost the full 10 pool, instead
> > of an effective 4 after a 6 blood Minion Tap. Everything Anvil does
> > past that point is gravy.
>
> No, you are mistaken, and this is a common combat fallacy.
>
> Knocking someone into torpor is meaningless, I love combat and I know
> you are knocking 10 blood off the vampire and that sounds good and
> all, but the investment of 10 pool is for the vehicle (i.e.
> Democritus). Specifically Democritus can refill pretty easily via
> Voter Cap.
Which he would do even if Anvil didn't do any damage. The point is
that Anvil has earned his keep quickly by removing early bloat (which
can be worth a lot). It puts me that much closer to ousting him.
Anvil could just as easily have bled for for 5, but you're really in
the same boat if Democritus is just going to keep capping and
tapping. Bloat is really irrelevant here... it counters either
position.
What we got here is:
Democritus is brought out for 10 and demolished preventing any
recovery tap, so the player is down the full cost of Democritus.
... versus ...
Democritus is brought out for 10, Anvil does a big dominate bleed,
Democritus can cap to cover all of that bleed. So the player is down
the full cost of Democritus.
Both of which are better than: Democritus is brought out, nothing is
done, and Democritus is capped. But they're not better than each
other (on a pool metric[*])... the player is down to the same pool,
and Democritus is still capable of cap and tap later.
The fact is that a metric that contains only measures of direct damage
is simply insufficient... indirect pool damage is still pool damage as
the target has less pool to play with either way. Anvil can cover his
cost either way if you're just looking at how fast he can cut 6 pool
from your opponent (which is all your metric is doing). With your
metric there's no fallacy, combat can cover the minion's cost as
easily as a bleed... which is a sign that the metric has issues.
A better metric would be more concerned with how much a minion can
sustain a positive pool flux of effective pool damage they're doing
and damage they're preventing (essentially a plus/minus score for the
minion). Of course, you don't need a guarantee of that flux
indefinitely... you only need it to last up to the end of the game
(which isn't really that long). This metric shows how combat starts
to fall down... you can't get additional benefit from rushing if
Democritus is already in torpor, but you can always bleed. This makes
it much easier to sustain a reliable stream of damage to counter
bloating with bleeds than with combat.
Another part that you allude to but go at the wrong way is the fact
that direct pool damage is needed to oust. It's not so important if
you're looking at justifying the cost of a minion as quickly as
possible, but it is important in the end... but not to the extent of
just it's capacity in direct pool damage. What matters is ousting
power... because doing 6 pool with Anvil is nothing if Democritus
bloats 20... what you need is the ability to reliably hammer away
again and again past that initial 6 damage and in excess of your
opponents bloat. This is also where combat decks will come up
short... they can cover their cost with damage, but can easily fall
away due to a lack of serious direct pool damage required to oust.
To sum up... the problem is that your metric is too short term. You
have good instincts about combat being weak, but your metric doesn't
actually measure that weakness... instead, it measures combat where it
is still strong (the knocking of lots of blood counters off of fresh
minions). The combat fallacy you refer to simply doesn't exist under
your overly simple metric.
Brent Ross
[*] Well combat might be considered slightly ahead here on a broader
scale because you could try to eat Democritus in torpor with a weenie,
and at the very least it's going to take some form of rescue and blood
gain to get Democritus active (he isn't capping the next turn if he
has to hunt). A ready Democritus with some blood on him is a bigger
threat, and that's what the bleed scenario leaves us with.
XZealot
> > > But a vampire can earn it's keep without doing pool damage directly.
...but you will never oust your prey with combat alone. Not without
pool damaging masters that enhance combat.
XZealot
> On Nov 10, 1:03 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > See I disagree, because when you are choosing vampires for a deck you
> > are going to try to get the most efficient vampires for your deck.
>
> ...who aren't necessarily the vampires who can deal the most pool
> damage in the least amount of time. If I'm selecting vampires for a
> weenie Auspex deck, for example, pool-damage payload isn't going to be
> the first feature I look for in terms of which vampires are the best
> for the crypt.
By their very nature Weenies are very effiicent especially 1-caps.
> I do agree that if your deck is nothing but go-forward killkillkill
> direct damage, like weenie PRE or weenie DEM, your formula will be
> useful. For every other kind of deck, I don't know that applying your
> forumla is necessarily going to get you the best results.
See above about weenies
> > Some vampires are very inefficient for what you have spent to get them
> > (i.e. Augustus Giovanni), where as some vampires are super efficient
> > (i.e. Anarch Convert).
>
> But that's not necessarily true in actual play. There are any number
> of situations that I can think of, in which I might find myself
> without any way to prevent myself from being there (because I can't
> select which decks my opponents play), in which I can make much more
> efficient use of Augustus than I can the Convert, to continue your
> example.
I would like to see that example.
Kushiel
> I would like to see that example.
Any situations in which your prey can block zero-stealth actions but
is unable to block actions whose delivery system consists of a variety
of no-block and stealth technology. Also, any time you're being bled
at one or more stealth. Also, any time you need to have votes on the
table. Etc etc etc. I'm sure you can think of just as many of these as
I can.
Note that I'm not trying to argue that weenies aren't often more
effective than vampires who cost much more than they do, just that
your attempt to formulate this fact mathematically is too reductive to
be useful in actual play.
John Eno
XZealot
> On Nov 11, 10:19 am, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > I would like to see that example.
>
> Any situations in which your prey can block zero-stealth actions but
> is unable to block actions whose delivery system consists of a variety
> of no-block and stealth technology. Also, any time you're being bled
> at one or more stealth. Also, any time you need to have votes on the
> table. Etc etc etc. I'm sure you can think of just as many of these as
> I can.
Okay, well, I am sure that is true as well.
I think I got sort of sidetracked as to what I was trying to show with
"Vampire Efficiency"
I think I was trying to show that if I put a vampire in a deck, then I
should build the deck efficiently. By efficiently, I mean, that the
vampire will do as much damage to my prey as his capacity in as many
rounds as he took to put into play.
I think that efficientcy is strictly a "payload" measurement, and I
agree that their should be some sort of "delivery system" (if eveyone
doesn't mind me borrowing those terms).
The initial vampire that got my attention was Oliver Thrace, who, at a
glace, should be a pretty decent vampire, but no one ever uses him. I
haven't been successful with him. So why is that? He has superior
dominate and a +1 bleed (conditional, but pretty much on command).
Why isn't everyone using him? He is a good bleeder with a combat
trump.
So what is missing? Why is he considered a "unusable vampire"?
suoli
> The initial vampire that got my attention was Oliver Thrace, who, at a
> glace, should be a pretty decent vampire, but no one ever uses him. I
> haven't been successful with him. So why is that? He has superior
> dominate and a +1 bleed (conditional, but pretty much on command).
> Why isn't everyone using him? He is a good bleeder with a combat
> trump.
>
> So what is missing? Why is he considered a "unusable vampire"?
Thrace doesn't really add anything worth 9 pool to a non-star deck but
he's too card intensive to be a star. No superior Swallowed by the
Night, no permarush, no 2nd Trad, no +strength, no nothing. If he
wants to do anything properly it has to become the focus of the deck
and he still won't be doing anything that a generic 6-cap couldn't do
as well. In short, he's bad because he was badly designed, not because
big caps are inherently inefficient.
Juggernaut1981
XZ,
Efficiency implies something close to "rate of return".
The problem with Oliver Thrace is that he naturally lends himself to a
"wall" environment. Anti-S:CE built in, out of clan Nec, wacky +bleed
tech. The vampire itself is apparrently unfocussed.
Anti S:CE is gold. Pure gold, with a good dose of Eyes of Argus +
other miscellaneous intercept he's great. Rutors Hand + Masquer
Wraiths isn't a bad way of loading him up with permacept (and then you
can play with Weather Controls to mess up people).
Problem> Why use Oliver when you can use Carna? TT gets around S:CE
and costs them the card (sure you have to play a card too... but meh)
Bleeding> How many other smaller DOM vamps are there? Oliver's dump
Tha for bleed is nice for unclogging a hand, but it's not as shiney as
it could be.
XZealot
Right, I agree, but I am trying to figure out how to make Oliver
Thrace viable, and in doing so I uncovered something that I have
called, "vampire efficiency".
I am going to sink 9 pool and 3 turns influencing this vampire into
play. What do I get for it?
Well at minimum I want "as much pool damage equal to its capacity in
as many turns as it took to transfer
out." If I am not doing that then I am really not playing the game
and I am really not putting too much pressure on my prey (i.e. bad
Gangrel deck that bleeds for 1).
So if I am going to build a deck, any deck, what is my target to shoot
for when choosing vampires and picking cards to go with those
vampires, or or choosing library cards and picking vampires to go with
those library cards.
"Vampire Efficiency" is an intuitive concept, and most experienced
players use it intuitively to pick their decks.
What if we could pull the facade back from that experience and examine
the details of what makes a vampire "efficient"?
suoli
> What if we could pull the facade back from that experience and examine
> the details of what makes a vampire "efficient"?
Intuition is our only viable tool for that. You can't force simple
rules on a chaotic system and expect anything useful to come out of it.
XZealot
Yes, you can. If what you were saying is true then you have the same
chance with random cards and random vampire as you do with carefully
constructed decks because it is a "chaotic system". We know that
isn't true.
We know that some vampires are "just better" than other vampires. I
think this has alot to do with "how much damage can I do to my prey
with these vampires".
suoli
> On Nov 13, 9:28 am, suoli <suoliruse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 13 marras, 16:50, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > What if we could pull the facade back from that experience and examine
> > > the details of what makes a vampire "efficient"?
>
> > Intuition is our only viable tool for that. You can't force simple
> > rules on a chaotic system and expect anything useful to come out of it.
>
> Yes, you can. If what you were saying is true then you have the same
> chance with random cards and random vampire as you do with carefully
> constructed decks because it is a "chaotic system". We know that
> isn't true.
Chaotic means highly complex, not random.
> We know that some vampires are "just better" than other vampires. I
> think this has alot to do with "how much damage can I do to my prey
> with these vampires".
I think it's an intuitive case-by-case analysis. You wouldn't call a
29-cap vampire with the ability to do 999 pool damage as an
unblockable d-action highly efficient, would you?
Blooded Sand
Well, if i was playing some kind of cheese ball breed boon deck, then
yes, i would call it highly effiecient, as once i have a buffer of,
say, 100 pool i transfer him out and oust the table. So it is relative
suoli
> Well, if i was playing some kind of cheese ball breed boon deck, then
> yes, i would call it highly effiecient, as once i have a buffer of,
> say, 100 pool i transfer him out and oust the table. So it is relative
If you can bloat for 30+ with a breed boon you can also oust the table.
XZealot
> On 13 marras, 17:33, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 13, 9:28 am, suoli <suoliruse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 13 marras, 16:50, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > What if we could pull the facade back from that experience and examine
> > > > the details of what makes a vampire "efficient"?
>
> > > Intuition is our only viable tool for that. You can't force simple
> > > rules on a chaotic system and expect anything useful to come out of it.
>
> > Yes, you can. If what you were saying is true then you have the same
> > chance with random cards and random vampire as you do with carefully
> > constructed decks because it is a "chaotic system". We know that
> > isn't true.
>
> Chaotic means highly complex, not random.
Only if you don't speak English (no offense if english is not your
first language).
Main Entry: cha·os
2 a often capitalized : a state of things in which chance is supreme;
especially : the confused unorganized state of primordial matter
before the creation of distinct forms — compare cosmos b : the
inherent unpredictability in the behavior of a complex natural system
(as the atmosphere, boiling water, or the beating heart)
3 a : a state of utter confusion <the blackout caused chaos throughout
the city> b : a confused mass or mixture <a chaos of television
antennas>
Main Entry: 1com·plex
1 : a whole made up of complicated or interrelated parts,
In no way does chaotic encapsulate the meaning of complex. Chaotic
can be complex but isn't always and complex is not always chaotic but
can be. They do no mean the same thing.
> > We know that some vampires are "just better" than other vampires. I
> > think this has alot to do with "how much damage can I do to my prey
> > with these vampires".
>
> I think it's an intuitive case-by-case analysis. You wouldn't call a
> 29-cap vampire with the ability to do 999 pool damage as an
> unblockable d-action highly efficient, would you?
Thanks for that highly ridiculous example which does nothing to
further the discussion. Currently their are no vampires above 11
capacity. Try again.
suoli
> In no way does chaotic encapsulate the meaning of complex. Chaotic
> can be complex but isn't always and complex is not always chaotic but
> can be. They do no mean the same thing.
I am obviously talking about the mathematical concept.
> > I think it's an intuitive case-by-case analysis. You wouldn't call a
> > 29-cap vampire with the ability to do 999 pool damage as an
> > unblockable d-action highly efficient, would you?
>
> Thanks for that highly ridiculous example which does nothing to
> further the discussion. Currently their are no vampires above 11
> capacity. Try again.
It's not ridiculous, it's extreme. The example illustrates that the
efficiency of a given vampire is not just a linear function of time
and pool damage and that there are other factors to consider as well.
I also posit that these other factors are so often significant that
simple rules can't consistently predict the efficiency of vampires.
witness1
A vampire efficiency metric doesn't even need to accurately describe
100% of printed vampires to be useful. It certainly doesn't need to
cover extreme hypotheticals.
-witness1
suoli
That's why I added the last sentence. I don't think it could
adequately cover *enough existing vampires* to be useful instead of
just confusing things.
Kushiel
> I think I was trying to show that if I put a vampire in a deck, then I
> should build the deck efficiently. By efficiently, I mean, that the
> vampire will do as much damage to my prey as his capacity in as many
> rounds as he took to put into play.
That's the part that I'm disagreeing with. The formula you're stating
here is only going to be a useful one for a pretty small selection of
decks, specifically those whose goal is to deal as much pool damage as
possible in as short a time as possible. Weenie bleed, weenie vote,
turbo-bleed and turbo-Parity Shift decks are the only ones that come
to mind which fall into that category.
If my deck is based around slowly whittling away my prey's pool while
building permanents and preparing for an endgame, your formula isn't
going to result in good vampire choices.
If my deck is a well-built combat deck (ie, one with some form of
defense other than rush), I want my prey to feel safe enough to spend
pool on minions, so your formula isn't going to work because I don't
want to deal a lot of pool damage early on.
If my deck is designed to wait until it has out many minions before
beginning any kind of serious offense against my prey, your formula
isn't going to work.
In short, it's not how quickly a vampire can deal pool damage that
makes it efficient, it's how well that vampire can accomplish your
goals (which may not be dealing immediate pool damage).
> The initial vampire that got my attention was Oliver Thrace, who, at a
> glace, should be a pretty decent vampire, but no one ever uses him. I
> haven't been successful with him. So why is that? He has superior
> dominate and a +1 bleed (conditional, but pretty much on command).
> Why isn't everyone using him? He is a good bleeder with a combat
> trump.
He's actually very inefficient, unless you're using him to do
something that no or few other vampires can accomplish (again,
regardless of whether or not that goal is pool damage to your prey).
Given that there's little which he can do that other, much cheaper
vampires can't, I'm not surprised that you're finding him lacking.
> So what is missing? Why is he considered a "unusable vampire"?
People don't play enough Ex Nihilo/Weather Control/Trap decks? :)
John Eno
Rehlow
That's an awesome deck ... on paper. I've had very little success with
it the couple times I tried to play it. I've been meaning to revisit
it now that Eyes of Argus exists (and Rego Motus could help with its
problem against agg). So many decks, so little time.
Later,
~Rehlow
Chris Berger
that everyone knows it's coming, and is afraid of it, but in actuality
it sucks and takes forever to set up, and isn't really good enough
when it is set up to warrant the fear that precedes it. So, people
will do their best to screw you to make sure you don't sweep, with you
shouting "wait til I get my combo set up - then you're toast". Then
you finally get your combo set up, knock a couple of vamps into torpor
if you're lucky, and then get ousted. =(
XZealot
> On 13 marras, 19:14, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > In no way does chaotic encapsulate the meaning of complex. Chaotic
> > can be complex but isn't always and complex is not always chaotic but
> > can be. They do no mean the same thing.
>
> I am obviously talking about the mathematical concept.
Chaos theory is not useful to describe the efficiency of individuals
or in fact to even describe anything within a closed system, like a
game where all the variable have been defined.
> > > I think it's an intuitive case-by-case analysis. You wouldn't call a
> > > 29-cap vampire with the ability to do 999 pool damage as an
> > > unblockable d-action highly efficient, would you?
>
> > Thanks for that highly ridiculous example which does nothing to
> > further the discussion. Currently their are no vampires above 11
> > capacity. Try again.
>
> It's not ridiculous, it's extreme. The example illustrates that the
> efficiency of a given vampire is not just a linear function of time
> and pool damage and that there are other factors to consider as well.
> I also posit that these other factors are so often significant that
> simple rules can't consistently predict the efficiency of vampires.
It is both ridiculous and extreme, and shows your unwillingness to
even approach the subject in any reasonable way. It's like trying to
find out the the amount of hay required for a horse by comparing to a
unicorn, which as we know, don't exist.
Frankly, as reluctant as I am to say this it's just a stupid
comparison.
XZealot
Is that all he does?
I have been trying to put an Anarch spin on him, but I haven't found
the overlap.
Library (19 cards)
------------------------------------------------------------
Action (7)
1x Gear Up
1x Keystone Kine
1x Principia Discordia
1x Reformation
1x Skullduggery
1x Smash and Grab
1x World's a Canvas, The
Action / Combat (1)
1x Steely Tenacity
Action Modifier (4)
1x CrimethInc.
1x Loose Cannon
1x Power of One
1x Smoke and Mirrors
Combat (3)
1x Diversion
1x Improvised Tactics
1x Lam Into
Reaction (4)
1x Detect Authority
1x Final Loosening
1x Friend of Mine
1x Mole, The
Maybe a Keystone Kine deck that bleeds for 3 with Dominate modifiers
with a spash of a World's a Canvas?
Anyone see anything else?
Jozxyqk
> The initial vampire that got my attention was Oliver Thrace, who, at a
> glace, should be a pretty decent vampire, but no one ever uses him. I
> haven't been successful with him. So why is that? He has superior
> dominate and a +1 bleed (conditional, but pretty much on command).
> Why isn't everyone using him? He is a good bleeder with a combat
> trump.
I have used Oliver Thrace, with Cedric as his slave.
I used their obfuscate, and I used Visceratika cards to fuel his
ability.
suoli
> Chaos theory is not useful to describe the efficiency of individuals
The efficiency of individuals is dependent on the whole system.
Otherwise it would be a completely meaningless concept.
> or in fact to even describe anything within a closed system, like a
> game where all the variable have been defined.
That's incorrect. Even if we could predict card draws the level of
complexity inherent to the game makes it effectively chaotic.
> It is both ridiculous and extreme, and shows your unwillingness to
> even approach the subject in any reasonable way. It's like trying to
> find out the the amount of hay required for a horse by comparing to a
> unicorn, which as we know, don't exist.
>
> Frankly, as reluctant as I am to say this it's just a stupid
> comparison.
The example served the purpose it was meant to. I'm not pretending
that it proves anything other than the fact that a simple rule on
vampire efficiency won't be consistently accurate. Furthermore, I
believe that *such a rule won't be accurate enough even for the
purposes of rating existing vampires*.
XZealot
> On 13 marras, 21:37, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > Chaos theory is not useful to describe the efficiency of individuals
>
> The efficiency of individuals is dependent on the whole system.
> Otherwise it would be a completely meaningless concept.
Misapplying Chaos theory to intentionally make it obscured is being
obtuse. Chaos theory has no bearing.
> > It is both ridiculous and extreme, and shows your unwillingness to
> > even approach the subject in any reasonable way. It's like trying to
> > find out the the amount of hay required for a horse by comparing to a
> > unicorn, which as we know, don't exist.
>
> > Frankly, as reluctant as I am to say this it's just a stupid
> > comparison.
>
> The example served the purpose it was meant to. I'm not pretending
> that it proves anything other than the fact that a simple rule on
> vampire efficiency won't be consistently accurate. Furthermore, I
> believe that *such a rule won't be accurate enough even for the
> purposes of rating existing vampires*.
I think you made your point. You do not think that vampires can be
judged, weighed or measured by anything other than chaos theory.
I think you are mistaken, and I think that you are obstinate enough in
your opinion that discussing this will you serves no purpose.
suoli
> Misapplying Chaos theory to intentionally make it obscured is being
> obtuse. Chaos theory has no bearing.
I'm not convinced that V:TES isn't mathematically complex enough to be
called chaotic.
> I think you made your point. You do not think that vampires can be
> judged, weighed or measured by anything other than chaos theory.
I think that the game is, in some ways, chaotic, and that vampires are
more accurately weighed by intuition than by one simple rule. That is
the point I am making.
> I think you are mistaken, and I think that you are obstinate enough in
> your opinion that discussing this will you serves no purpose.
Chill out.
wumpus
Seems like he's only worth using if you're abusing his (first)
special, and his special is all about combat. He's awfully big to be
rushing without a built-in rush, so that means intercept, with his big
eye and all.
So, what should he do to make himself fearsome in combat? You could
go the IR/LI goggles + Theft/Ivory Bow standard Tremere route - it's
time tested and good. You could go the exotic Ex Nihilo route, which
is neither time tested nor good. Or you could try something new:
Ankara Citadel (via Magic, of course), Rego Motus(/Kevlar), Disarm. A
little Biothaumaturgic Experimentation would nicely complement the
latter, as would the odd Blood Fury to hose weapons/prevent.
Depravity or Preternatural Strength and he blocks, hits for 3 and
prevents the return, occasionally tearing off limbs - solid.
And once you're Citadeled up, you need plenty of Telepathic
Misdirection and Eluding the Arms of Morpheus. Support vampires
should probably include Auspex weenies to Gather Anima and/or bounce.
Magic up the Bowl and a Helicopter, Rutor yourself, maybe Precognizant
Mobility and/or Metro Underground to keep him acting (Govern) and
untapped... Well, it's a star deck, but not a bad one?
Alex
XZealot
That sounds good.
So according to this theory of "Vampire Efficiency" I need to be able
to do 9 pool worth of damage in 3 turns with him.
Key items to look at
1) Bleeding - He has +1 bleed effectively and superior Dominate. If I
wanted to turn him all the way up I would use Govern + Conditioning to
bleed for 7 in one shot
2) Delivery- you can either stealth it through with obfuscate,
thaumaturgy or necromancy and then use Tangle Atropos Hand if you get
bounced at stealth (only requires a block attempt) and also gives you
access to a second action.
3) Survival- He has Aupex and Thaumaturgy, so you could use Rutors/
Eyes of Argus for untap to block and Dominate for Deflections.
4) Combat- He is trumpy in combat so you could magic the Smith for an
Ivory Bow then use alot of Apportations to keep combat going until you
land the agg
So that is a deck fleshed out that gives you a efficient Oliver
Thrace. But who matches up with him?
Deck Name : Oliver's Effieciency
Author : Norman S. Brown Jr
Description :
Crypt (12 vampires) Capacity min: 3 max: 9 average: 6.5
------------------------------------------------------------
4x Oliver Thrace 9 AUS DOM THA nec obf pot
Tremere:3
1x Polly Kay Fisher 8 AUS DOM THA for pot archbishop !
Ventrue:4
1x Black Wallace 6 DOM POT obt tha
Lasombra:4
1x Muhsin Samir 6 DOM THA aus pot
Tremere:4
1x Nickolai, The Surv 6 aus dom pot pre tha vic !
Tremere:4
1x Antonio d'Erlette 5 THA dom for pot !
Tremere:4
1x Frank Weisshadel 4 dom pot tha
Tremere:4
1x Janine 4 aus dom tha !
Tremere:4
1x Ehrich Weiss 3 dom tha
Tremere:3
Library (90 cards)
------------------------------------------------------------
Action (19)
12x Govern the Unaligned
4x Magic of the Smith
3x Rutor's Hand
Action Modifier (24)
8x Conditioning
8x Mirror Walk
8x Tangle Atropos' Hand
Combat (9)
9x Apportation
Equipment (4)
1x Ankara Citadel, Turkey, The
1x Heart of Nizchetus
1x Ivory Bow
1x Palatial Estate
Master (11)
1x Arcane Library
2x Dreams of the Sphinx
1x Giant's Blood
1x Jake Washington (Hunter)
5x Villein
1x Wasserschloss Anif, Austria
Reaction (23)
6x Deflection
11x Eyes of Argus
6x Telepathic Misdirection
Crafted with : Anarch Revolt Deck Builder. (Fri Nov 13 15:03:46 2009)
So Oliver works effieciently in the deck above. What does anyone else
think?
XZealot
> On 13 marras, 22:28, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > Misapplying Chaos theory to intentionally make it obscured is being
> > obtuse. Chaos theory has no bearing.
>
> I'm not convinced that V:TES isn't mathematically complex enough to be
> called chaotic.
I don't have a degree in mathematics. So I think you are out of my
league here.
suoli
I got mine from Wikipedia.
It basically means that a given system is nonrandom but too complex to
be predictable for practical purposes. Of course, when Malk94 takes
the seat behind Gangrels Bleed For 1 we can make a pretty good guess
about the outcome. But that's only because we have previous experience
of the scenarios usually involved in such a match up and the brain
power to actually implement this experience on top of knowledge of
initial conditions. To even achieve a pretty good guess a mathematical
formula would have to somehow incorporate that knowledge, which would
bring it closer to an AI than a simple, general rule.
XZealot
Juggernaut1981
Chaos theory, in a "practical" sense is often used to calculate things
such as "Brownian Motion" (tracking one particle in a cloud of gas as
it semi-randomly bounces off the other gas particles and so on).
Chaos theory requires a system that is non-random (i.e. it is not pure
probability like drawing an Zillah's Valley in your first hand from
your library) and is "too complex" to be predictable (i.e. it doesn't
follow other well established systems, like Newtonian physics,
Thermodynamics, etc).
But primarily what we are trying to determine is not the "Path Oliver
Thrace will take to Victory" but far closer to "How long will it take
for my investment to give me a return if I have to borrow the whole
cost of the investment?" If you're looking for mathematical systems
with multiple variables and have a level of "human caused"
unpredictability, look to stock-market and financial mathematics.
Chaos theory won't quite cut it.
XZealot
> Seems like he's only worth using if you're abusing his (first)
> special, and his special is all about combat. He's awfully big to be
> rushing without a built-in rush, so that means intercept, with his big
> eye and all.
His special +bleed special is good, but his no SCE special is meh.
It tends to get him killed. I was focusing on the rest of the vampire
to see what he can actually do.
I would never use him and Telepathic Trackings when Apportations exist
and are free.
XZealot
> On Nov 13, 10:12 am, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 11, 10:55 am, Kushiel <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 11, 10:19 am, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > I would like to see that example.
>
> > > Any situations in which your prey can block zero-stealth actions but
> > > is unable to block actions whose delivery system consists of a variety
> > > of no-block and stealth technology. Also, any time you're being bled
> > > at one or more stealth. Also, any time you need to have votes on the
> > > table. Etc etc etc. I'm sure you can think of just as many of these as
> > > I can.
>
> > Okay, well, I am sure that is true as well.
>
> > I think I got sort of sidetracked as to what I was trying to show with
> > "Vampire Efficiency"
>
> > I think I was trying to show that if I put a vampire in a deck, then I
> > should build the deck efficiently. By efficiently, I mean, that the
> > vampire will do as much damage to my prey as his capacity in as many
> > rounds as he took to put into play.
>
> > agree that their should be some sort of "delivery system" (if eveyone
> > doesn't mind me borrowing those terms).
>
> > The initial vampire that got my attention was Oliver Thrace, who, at a
> > glace, should be a pretty decent vampire, but no one ever uses him. I
> > haven't been successful with him. So why is that? He has superior
> > dominate and a +1 bleed (conditional, but pretty much on command).
> > Why isn't everyone using him? He is a good bleeder with a combat
> > trump.
>
>
> Efficiency implies something close to "rate of return".
>
> The problem with Oliver Thrace is that he naturally lends himself to a
> "wall" environment. Anti-S:CE built in, out of clan Nec, wacky +bleed
> tech. The vampire itself is apparrently unfocussed.
>
> Anti S:CE is gold. Pure gold, with a good dose of Eyes of Argus +
> other miscellaneous intercept he's great. Rutors Hand + Masquer
> Wraiths isn't a bad way of loading him up with permacept (and then you
> can play with Weather Controls to mess up people).
> Problem> Why use Oliver when you can use Carna? TT gets around S:CE
> and costs them the card (sure you have to play a card too... but meh)
>
> Bleeding> How many other smaller DOM vamps are there? Oliver's dump
> Tha for bleed is nice for unclogging a hand, but it's not as shiney as
> it could be.
I made the deck to focus on Oliver as a bleeding threat not as a
combat monster. I have reprinted it below. Please let me know what
you think.
Kushiel
> So Oliver works effieciently in the deck above. What does anyone else
> think?
You've made a stealth/bleed deck that uses the Tangle trick to avoid
bounce. How is using Oliver any more efficient than using midcap
Lasombra for the same effect?
John Eno
XZealot
I guess the word "efficiency" has created some confusion. Vamprie
efficiency versus Deck efficiency.
But to answer your question, this deck uses Thaumaturgy.
wumpus
On Nov 16, 6:07 am, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote:
> > Seems like he's only worth using if you're abusing his (first)
> > special, and his special is all about combat. He's awfully big to be
> > rushing without a built-in rush, so that means intercept, with his big
> > eye and all.
>
> His special +bleed special is good, but his no SCE special is meh.
> It tends to get him killed.
Indeed. Living by the sword tends to result in dying by the sword.
> I was focusing on the rest of the vampire
> to see what he can actually do.
Not a lot that you couldn't do better with someone else, or at least
that was where I started my answer to: What can you do with Oliver?
His first special is really the only thing that makes him special.
> I would never use him and Telepathic Trackings when Apportations exist
> and are free.
I didn't suggest Telepathic Tracking - it's mostly redundant with his
special. I suggested lots of Telepathic Misdirection, for use after
he Magics for Ankara (and with Eluding to fully untap). All of which
was just gravy on the whole 'Rego Motus for free + Disarm' combo that
I thought was mildly interesting.
Alex
Juggernaut1981
I was suggesting: What is the distinction between: Oliver Thrace +
light intercept & Carna + TT? Not heaps, cheaper vamp, lack of "dump
THA for Bleed".
Oliver Thrace tends to equal "fast death" for a metagame with classic
Pre-Vote-Majesty (rather than a few of the Vote BeatDowns that have
been appearing in my meta. Bru Vote'n'Smash, Guruhi Vote w/ Birds &
Bats, Nos Royalty, etc). Block, no S:CE for you, Blood Fury/Blood
Rage/Taste or Theft-Press-Theft-Press-Theft... In those metas, Trap-
Theft is nasty, if you have an Ivory bow, you can ping them to torpor
at your leisure.
If you were playing around with the Aus-Tha-Nec (Trochomancy anybody?)
you could stash in Lille Haake, Oliver Thrace, Marino Reymundo Vasquez
& Marianna. Masquer Wraiths, Trochomancy, The Magic Book of
Thaumaturgy, The Magic Book of Necromancy, maybe a couple of
Harbingers in the mix...
Kushiel
> I guess the word "efficiency" has created some confusion. Vamprie
> efficiency versus Deck efficiency.
Not sure that I can see how you can achieve the one without the other.
But I was, in fact, talking specifically about your standard of the
XZealot Vampire Efficiency system.
> But to answer your question, this deck uses Thaumaturgy.
By your own measure, though, those cards aren't helping you achieve
vampire efficiency.*
Magic of the Smith: Wastes an action that doesn't deal any pool damage
to your prey, or help you deal pool damage to your prey in the future
(with the potential exception of using the Heart of Nizchetus to get
more payload, but in a straightforward deck like this one it's
probably just better replaced with more payload).
Rutor's Hand: Wastes an action that doesn't deal any pool damage to
your prey. Additionally, since you have no way to deal pool damage
other than bleeding, the future actions it provides you won't help you
deal pool damage to your prey, since you can't bleed and then take a
different pool-damaging action in one turn. And you have plenty of
wake, so you don't need these to act and then stay untapped.
Apportation: Wasted card slots that don't help to deal pool damage to
your prey. Even if your Magic/Bow/Apportation module works out (which
strikes me as unlikely), you've got no way to leverage that
torporization as pool damage. These would be better off as card slots
devoted to a more reliable delivery system.
So those Thaumaturgy cards aren't actually increasing your XZealot
Vampire Efficiency at all.
*Obviously excepting Mirror Walk, which is easily replaced by
Obtenebration stealth cards in my example of how midcap Lasombra
stealth/bleed can achieve essentially the same effect that you're
going for here, but with greater vampire efficiency by your standards.
John Eno
XZealot
> On Nov 16, 3:16 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > I guess the word "efficiency" has created some confusion. Vamprie
> > efficiency versus Deck efficiency.
>
> Not sure that I can see how you can achieve the one without the other.
> But I was, in fact, talking specifically about your standard of the
> XZealot Vampire Efficiency system.
>
> > But to answer your question, this deck uses Thaumaturgy.
>
> By your own measure, though, those cards aren't helping you achieve
> vampire efficiency.*
>
> Magic of the Smith: Wastes an action that doesn't deal any pool damage
> to your prey, or help you deal pool damage to your prey in the future
> (with the potential exception of using the Heart of Nizchetus to get
> more payload, but in a straightforward deck like this one it's
> probably just better replaced with more payload).
...then certainly get the Heart with it.
> Rutor's Hand: Wastes an action that doesn't deal any pool damage to
> your prey. Additionally, since you have no way to deal pool damage
> other than bleeding, the future actions it provides you won't help you
> deal pool damage to your prey, since you can't bleed and then take a
> different pool-damaging action in one turn. And you have plenty of
> wake, so you don't need these to act and then stay untapped.
Right, but it ensures that you can take a bleed action to oust your
prey, AND do other non-ousting actions.
> Apportation: Wasted card slots that don't help to deal pool damage to
> your prey. Even if your Magic/Bow/Apportation module works out (which
> strikes me as unlikely), you've got no way to leverage that
> torporization as pool damage. These would be better off as card slots
> devoted to a more reliable delivery system.
I can agree to that
> So those Thaumaturgy cards aren't actually increasing your XZealot
> Vampire Efficiency at all.
>
> *Obviously excepting Mirror Walk, which is easily replaced by
> Obtenebration stealth cards in my example of how midcap Lasombra
> stealth/bleed can achieve essentially the same effect that you're
> going for here, but with greater vampire efficiency by your standards.
...but how do you play Obtenebration cards with Oliver Thrace?
Kushiel
> ...but how do you play Obtenebration cards with Oliver Thrace?
You don't. If you want an efficient stealth/bleed/Tangle deck, you
have Banjoko and Ignacio play them (for the same pool cost you'd be
spending on Thrace). If you want an efficient Oliver Thrace deck, you
don't try to use him to stealth/bleed, because he can't do so
efficiently. That's the whole point of my deck critique.
John Eno
XZealot
How do you use Oliver Thrace efficiently is the whole point? How do
you get his investment back out of him if you put him in a deck?
Stealth bleed is a good start for any vampire.
Kushiel
> How do you use Oliver Thrace efficiently is the whole point? How do
> you get his investment back out of him if you put him in a deck?
His bleed special is crap if you try to make a deck around it, because
loads of other vampires have one or more bleed disciplines, better
stealth options, and unconditional/cardless +bleed.
His combat special, on the other hand, is unique to him. If you want
to make an efficient deck based around him, you're going to have to
use it, because it's the only thing he's got going that other vampires
can't also do.
Given that rush sucks, and large-cap rush sucks even worse, and that
he has AUS, you're going to put him into an intercept/combat deck if
you want to make efficient use of him. In that deck, his bleed special
will actually be good, because you won't have the card slots for many
bleed mods, but you'll have plenty of Thaumaturgy cards that you won't
always need to use for their card text.
It's important to note that when you do this, your efficiency formula
about dealing lots of pool damage in the smallest amount of turns
possible isn't going to be applicable. But like I keep saying, that
doesn't mean that you're using this particular vampire inefficiently,
because he's not efficient at dealing lots of pool damage in a small
amount of turns.
> Stealth bleed is a good start for any vampire.
Not for large vampires, because small vampires can do the same job at
much less cost. Why spend X pool to bleed once a turn when you can
spend the same amount of pool to bleed twice a turn, if you seek
efficiency?
John Eno