Would You Support/Play a New Game based in WoD w/VTES Roots?

I think the powers that be are already in your method of thinking.

And I quote:


4. Tournament Game Rules

4.1. Cards Allowed

All cards in a player's deck must be genuine Vampire: The Eternal Struggle or Jyhad cards or official V:EKN issued cards from the only authoritative source www.vekn.net . When using V:EKN issued cards they must be color printed on standard paper and inserted into opaque sleeves before another Vampire: The Eternal Struggle or Jyhad card, this requires opaque sleeves for the whole crypt and/or library.
So any official V:EKN issued cards can be done this way.
So in theory the rules are already in place for this kind of thing.

DR.

I keep trying to think of why a LCG printing would be worse than a CCG printing, and I can't really come up with a reason. Conceptually, I don't like the idea of a LCG - it smacks of limiting the variety of a game while trying to remove aspects of collectibility.

But, in practice, not being experienced enough with LCGs, I don't see how it changes anything. Rarity, at the aggregate level, achieves the same effect as determining how many copies of each card gets printed in a fixed set. When you need X copies of a card to build a deck, you can buy Y sets rather than N number of boxes of random packs. Precons for this game display a LCG nature. In theory, you can also trade, though I would expect people of my ilk to largely be looking to trade for the same cards, a feature CCGs already have.

Removing randomness does prevent a lot of possibilities for limited play, of course.

I'm just curious as to whether I'm missing some real world phenomena rather than the feeling that LCGs are more boardgamey than CCGs. Do LCGs end up costing more for those who want to build certain decks since people are constantly paying for cards they know they won't use? Hm, that's pretty much how CCGs work now, as well.

Speaking of boardgameiness, I have found it rather normal for V:TES and other multiplayer CCGs to move in a boardgameish direction. I also understand that the boardgame model, including expansion of boardgames, does quite well where the CCG model seems to have leveled off. Ultimately, when you stop expanding a CCG, how is it different from a boardgame with an absurd number of parts? Isn't is just the nature of Customizable Card Games that you build your own components for the game that separates the two when taken to an extreme (compare Dominion to a CCG)?

As for Magic's Standard format, I've tried to mine my collection for Legacy and I simply can't compete. Even if I have the cards for one Legacy competitive deck, I doubt I have the sideboard cards to compete in tournament play. That's one deck. I'm hardly interested in playing a CCG where I have one viable deck.

Yes, it's ridiculous how expensive most Standard tournament decks are, running $300-400 if bought as singles almost every time I've looked at the price of such decks. Yet, how much more expensive is a format that doesn't restrict to the latest core set and two blocks? And, who in their right mind thinks that Vintage is less of a burden than Standard?

But, put aside the cost for a moment, since it's obvious that there are plenty of people who can afford to compete at Magic. My lack of interest in having competitive Legacy decks isn't so much cost, it's time and effort. I've made a pass on my Magic collection to pull out tournament level cards. There are tons and tons of holes. The sheer number of cards missing to build an interesting (to me) assortment of decks is so vast that the effort to hunt down all of the miscellaneous cards, cost not being considered as a lot of them are uncommons, is daunting.

For quite some time, I've been of the belief that the hating on Magic's formats is due to not really understanding that they have no other choice. They have over 10,000 different cards. Magic cards combine in ways that cards in most other CCGs don't. Sure, playtesting focuses on Standard ... because vigorous playtesting a game with 10,000+ distinct components is madness. Furthermore, I too often see comments that one's collection routinely goes obsolete. Actually, Magic constantly brings back older cards through their core sets. Now, it is true that most cards in the game will never be Standard legal ever again, so I understand the general sentiment, but it's simply not true that you never get to play old cards in newer formats.

The newbie is far more capable to get in and compete at a CCG when the card pool is smaller and the cards needed have been printed more recently. But, besides that, there are numerous benefits to rotating card pools. All expanded games suffer from mechanics bloat. Improvements in design, development, and wording happen over time (normally) to where older cards often pale in terms of balance and clarity. Metagames are more lively than when older power cards are removed to make room for newer cards. Set rotation is something of a reset button. And, as Magic does, can always bring back well-designed cards from the past.

I just get the sense that people against set rotation are people who spent money on a game and want to stop, that they want their old decks to always be tournament viable. That's really not a CCG model. While good for the oldtimer moneywise, it's incredibly unfriendly to the newb or even just someone who missed out on key older cards. Though, in an ideal world, everything old is new again. Old cards get reprinted, putting them into the hands of newbs. Old strategies resurface as metagame winners, rewarding the old timers for having built those decks in the past.

I think a LCG and type 2 style format would be good at removing alot of the "overwhelmed" feeling any new players may get. Also, (i've mentioned this in another thread) i think digital copies of cards sold directly from the company would do alot as well. The enduser buys the LCG box for the set he/she wants, then goes online and buys digital singles at a cost of .50 to 1.50 to sculpt their deck. They download the digital singles, print them out and cut them out, and then they are off and running. Piracy would be an issue, but if you've ever tried to cut out 60 to 90 cards that you've printed out, then you know the time and effort make you just want to buy the cards. Someone could try and sell them, but they would have to be lower than the online cost a decent percentage of the time.

This definitely slows the sale of multiple boxs of box "X", as the end consumer only needs one, but the profit should be made up in the sale of a single box to multiple people combined with sales of singles online.

This would hopefully maintain if not increase sales, while increasing the player base, which increases interest, which then feeds off itself more and more.

I get that the CCG model has its advantages, but I personally don't feel that VTES competes in that market well, and I think it could compete in a different style of market in a much better fashion that would increase revenue as well as player base.

Azel wrote: I explicitly quit MtG and L5R once they switched to Type 2 format. It was because VTES never went to such a format is why I stayed. Found out I wasn't the only one. Type 2 format would likely be the death of this game.

I'd support VTES "Type 2" (and then VTES "classic") only if a game company printed a new, 300-card base set, and had intentions of printing a new, 300 (ish) card set once per year.

That, and assuming the card choices for the sets, especially the first one, was done by Peal & Co., and the rulebook and card text was standardized and thoroughly revised by Pascal & Co., I think we would add to the game, not subtract from it.

KevinM wrote:

Azel wrote: I explicitly quit MtG and L5R once they switched to Type 2 format. It was because VTES never went to such a format is why I stayed. Found out I wasn't the only one. Type 2 format would likely be the death of this game.

I'd support VTES "Type 2" (and then VTES "classic") only if a game company printed a new, 300-card base set, and had intentions of printing a new, 300 (ish) card set once per year.

That, and assuming the card choices for the sets, especially the first one, was done by Peal & Co., and the rulebook and card text was standardized and thoroughly revised by Pascal & Co., I think we would add to the game, not subtract from it.

Fascinating idea. I think it could have worked for V:TES and provided the designer(s) an opportunity to experiment with drastic short-term changes (for example, implement changes found in your typical "how to fix dominate" thread).

i still oppose the type 2 idea for vtes at all, because we don't print nearly as much wallpaper as mtg. the cards that haven't been reprinted in sets since lets say LoB are very few, and just reprinting the damn things would make new players feel less overwhelmed if we had a base set with most reprints of relevant cards. i can't ever see a new player being able to easily round up neutral guards or sense deps, unless they get reprinted. but we have staple cards out the wazoo, and new players really only need to know what those do to enjoy the game. cards like legacy of pander warrant an explanation as soon as they hit the table, but other old cards being unknown to new players isn't really that relevant. I have to explain how masochism works to all sorts of players, because nobody uses it.
i think per large set, 100 ish cards (not counting hunting grounds and birthday cards) are actually often-used cards, and things like majesty and govern overlap quite often. having a large base set in the future would more than make the cards new players would need obtainable, it would familiarize them with almost everything thats relevant. even if limited use things like adaptability were only in precons, drawing in new players wouldn't really be that hard if they could find the cards. in the time it takes a new mtg player to memorize whats in t2, a vtes player probably has a handle on every card that you see on a regular basis. our learning curve for the game as a whole is alot longer, thats always been our weakness.