Jump to content



Photo

FFG Announced Restricted List


  • Please log in to reply
59 replies to this topic

#41 AegonTargaryen

AegonTargaryen

    Member

  • Members
  • 64 posts

Posted 22 May 2014 - 04:59 PM

The fact that they needed to do this (and they needed to do it, the game was insanely terrible right now) is a huge problem and leaves me very concerned about there ability to design cards in the long run.  These objective sets are in back to back pack, and it's not some unbelievable combo, the interraction is so obvious and over the top it's ridiculous, how any playtester did not build this deck first and realize how OP and NPE it is is beyond me, and gents, playtesting gets harder with a larger card pool, not easier, if they missed this in back to back packs, they don't have a playtesting process at all

 

Please read this: http://www.cardgamed...all-the-haters/

 

Myself, I think that Freeholders were good design to counter the perceived sith dominance. As TGO said, sometimes you have to push the limits. FFG just got a little over the top with Holding All the Cards.

 

Even Wizards of the Coast did not see the monster coming their affinity mechanic would create when the Mirrodin block was released. And you would think they do a lot of playtesting.

 

An solution has been implemented. So please stop complaining now and go play the game. It's great. Just a few minutes ago, I gave the Sith a serious beating with a pure Jedi deck running Moldy Crow proxies and Jedi Mind Tricks. I really like what the designers of this game are doing.


  • Toqtamish, KennedyHawk and Conradj like this

#42 Troopershark

Troopershark

    Member

  • Members
  • 36 posts

Posted 22 May 2014 - 05:11 PM

 

The fact that they needed to do this (and they needed to do it, the game was insanely terrible right now) is a huge problem and leaves me very concerned about there ability to design cards in the long run.  These objective sets are in back to back pack, and it's not some unbelievable combo, the interraction is so obvious and over the top it's ridiculous, how any playtester did not build this deck first and realize how OP and NPE it is is beyond me, and gents, playtesting gets harder with a larger card pool, not easier, if they missed this in back to back packs, they don't have a playtesting process at all

 

Please read this: http://www.cardgamed...all-the-haters/

 

Myself, I think that Freeholders were good design to counter the perceived sith dominance. As TGO said, sometimes you have to push the limits. FFG just got a little over the top with Holding All the Cards.

 

Even Wizards of the Coast did not see the monster coming their affinity mechanic would create when the Mirrodin block was released. And you would think they do a lot of playtesting.

 

An solution has been implemented. So please stop complaining now and go play the game. It's great. Just a few minutes ago, I gave the Sith a serious beating with a pure Jedi deck running Moldy Crow proxies and Jedi Mind Tricks. I really like what the designers of this game are doing.

 

Free Holders is a good design, and a good answer to Sith, Holding the cards as a two of is the problem, and every card game had things escape playtesting at some point, but this is so obvious that I maintain the not catching that is very worrysome.  Like I said, I'll start playing the game again, cause it will be fun again now that the silliness is stopped via a restricted list, and I am fine with the solution, but there is no way anyone is going to convince me they have anything close to a robust Q&A process if this made it through in back to back packs, I don't consider myself good at this game, and it took me 5 seconds to build that deck once I saw the cards



#43 D.Knight Sevus

D.Knight Sevus

    Member

  • Members
  • 131 posts

Posted 22 May 2014 - 05:51 PM

Free Holders is a good design, and a good answer to Sith, Holding the cards as a two of is the problem, and every card game had things escape playtesting at some point, but this is so obvious that I maintain the not catching that is very worrysome.  Like I said, I'll start playing the game again, cause it will be fun again now that the silliness is stopped via a restricted list, and I am fine with the solution, but there is no way anyone is going to convince me they have anything close to a robust Q&A process if this made it through in back to back packs, I don't consider myself good at this game, and it took me 5 seconds to build that deck once I saw the cards

 

 

Firstly, we don't have the rest of the Force Cycle. We've been told that the cycle is playtested as a unit. Possibly with the entire cycle in play, The False Report/Against All Odds decks successfully reduced the dominance of Sith Control in the playtest environment, but there were other LS decks that matched up well with the DS decks that rose to pick up Sith Control's slack, so the deck wasn't as completely centralizing in the playtest environment as it turned out to be in the wild.

 

Secondly, we've been told the packs are organized for release after the playtesting process is complete. So we really can't blame the people who playtested the cycle for this, at all.

 

Finally, Sith Control has been the deck to beat since the Core Set release. Not even the S&S Unblockable deck that everyone was complaning about a few months ago was enough to knock it from that spot. If, in playtesting, The False Report/Against All Odds decks were able to punish the Sith Control decks enough to break their metagame dominance, why wouldn't they want to make sure the deck had its components as quickly as possible, especially with a tournament season coming up? Unfortunately, FFG miscalculated how viable the counters to the deck were, and the deck became even more of a centralizing force in the metagame than Sith Control was before it.

 

No, this didn't "slip by" the playtesters. No, FFG did not blindly send these out there not knowing what they had unleashed upon the game. It was (appropriately enough) a gamble that the deck would shake up the metagame during the competitive season. And it did, just not in the way FFG wanted it to.


  • Toqtamish and KennedyHawk like this

#44 Troopershark

Troopershark

    Member

  • Members
  • 36 posts

Posted 22 May 2014 - 06:54 PM

 

Free Holders is a good design, and a good answer to Sith, Holding the cards as a two of is the problem, and every card game had things escape playtesting at some point, but this is so obvious that I maintain the not catching that is very worrysome.  Like I said, I'll start playing the game again, cause it will be fun again now that the silliness is stopped via a restricted list, and I am fine with the solution, but there is no way anyone is going to convince me they have anything close to a robust Q&A process if this made it through in back to back packs, I don't consider myself good at this game, and it took me 5 seconds to build that deck once I saw the cards

 

 

Firstly, we don't have the rest of the Force Cycle. We've been told that the cycle is playtested as a unit. Possibly with the entire cycle in play, The False Report/Against All Odds decks successfully reduced the dominance of Sith Control in the playtest environment, but there were other LS decks that matched up well with the DS decks that rose to pick up Sith Control's slack, so the deck wasn't as completely centralizing in the playtest environment as it turned out to be in the wild.

 

Secondly, we've been told the packs are organized for release after the playtesting process is complete. So we really can't blame the people who playtested the cycle for this, at all.

 

Finally, Sith Control has been the deck to beat since the Core Set release. Not even the S&S Unblockable deck that everyone was complaning about a few months ago was enough to knock it from that spot. If, in playtesting, The False Report/Against All Odds decks were able to punish the Sith Control decks enough to break their metagame dominance, why wouldn't they want to make sure the deck had its components as quickly as possible, especially with a tournament season coming up? Unfortunately, FFG miscalculated how viable the counters to the deck were, and the deck became even more of a centralizing force in the metagame than Sith Control was before it.

 

No, this didn't "slip by" the playtesters. No, FFG did not blindly send these out there not knowing what they had unleashed upon the game. It was (appropriately enough) a gamble that the deck would shake up the metagame during the competitive season. And it did, just not in the way FFG wanted it to.

 

I'd rather think they did blindly send these out there then the alternative, which is the knowingly said lets create this significantly OP and NPE deck that we'll need to fix a month after we release it. There is no in between, they either saw in playtesting this was broken and let it happen, or they did not see it at all. 

 

If they playtest the entire cycle, not the sequence of release, then that is a flaw in the process they run, because it implies they are willing to have the meta suck for anywhere between one to five months. The fact that they "miscalculated" what this deck would do to the meta is what demonstrates they don't have a solid process, the individual playtesters are not the problem necessarily, I have no insight into the process FFG runs, my point is that the simple fact that the meta was allowed to be what it was between yesterday and 5 weeks ago, in the middle of the store champs and start of regional season, outlines they have significant issues in the end to end QA process



#45 dbmeboy

dbmeboy

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,302 posts

Posted 22 May 2014 - 08:01 PM

Looking at the results from the last round of regionals, there are players who posted 70+% win rates with their dark side decks against fields dominated by this combo.  Perhaps the real problem isn't the pure power level of the deck but the high end of what it's capable of.  Given that, it's possible that design/development and/or playtesting did see the deck, but that in the playtest environment it didn't hit the insane opening enough times and was beatable enough the rest of the time that it got passed through (or passed through with changes that weren't quite enough).  But when it hits the wild and literally everyone at some tournaments is running the deck it becomes clear that the combo does happen too often (or that even happening rarely is proving to be too much for the meta).  That would explain why they didn't allow running a 1/1 split as I've seen some people suggest should have happened.  1/1 would make the crazy start still possible, though much less likely...


  • Toqtamish, PBrennan and KennedyHawk like this

#46 Joker Two

Joker Two

    Member

  • Members
  • 358 posts

Posted 22 May 2014 - 11:57 PM

While I am opposed to the idea of a Restricted list in principle, I think this is one of the best ways to handle the current situation.  Particularly in that it is reversible, if (as I hope, and as some have said) the remainder of the cycle contains the solid counters needed.

 

I'm particularly glad at the speed with which they reacted, and forgive them any heavy-handedness involved.  I played in the Regional Championship at FFG's Event Center, where both sets made a very strong showing.  I faced them in three of my five matches and I believe they represented better than half of the top 8.

 

The tournament results are reason enough to put some measure into place, but every game where Freeholders were played was marked by an aura of resignation from both players.  Everyone I talked to who played these two Objective Sets, including the eventual champion, expressed disappointment over having to resort to using them to remain competitive.  This, even more than the effects on game results, is why I'm glad of FFG's decision.  It's not just the sets' power, but their effect on the community, that is the real problem.



#47 Rogue 4

Rogue 4

    Member

  • Members
  • 343 posts

Posted 23 May 2014 - 07:39 AM

If I may ask, are you in favor of errata or restriction?

errata makes the game sloppy in my opinion, so I am in favor of this restriction list because as others mentioned, they can come off the list.

 

Also, no one feels bad playing the Freeloaders. They want to win and they will play them because they are competitive. Otherwise, use your created minds and make something of your own (still almost impossible to do since we all have access to the same amount of cards).


Millennium Falcon, Rebel Transport, Tantive IV, A-Wing x2, B-wing, E-Wing, X-wing x4, Y-wing, Z95 Headhunter x2, HWK-290, TIE Fighter x 5, TIE Advanced x1, TIE Bomber, x1, TIE Interceptor x1, TIE Defender, TIE Phantom,  Imperial Aces, Slave I, Lambda Shuttle

 


#48 Joker Two

Joker Two

    Member

  • Members
  • 358 posts

Posted 23 May 2014 - 10:03 AM

If I may ask, are you in favor of errata or restriction?

errata makes the game sloppy in my opinion, so I am in favor of this restriction list because as others mentioned, they can come off the list.

 

Also, no one feels bad playing the Freeloaders. They want to win and they will play them because they are competitive. Otherwise, use your created minds and make something of your own (still almost impossible to do since we all have access to the same amount of cards).

 

Me?  Restriction.  I don't like that they had to do it, but it's the best solution available, and I too would be glad to see solid counters come out for the same reason.  Probably a good idea for a new thread actually, as far as what game mechanics could be introduced in future objective sets to mitigate this combo's effect.

 

As to the second part, people are obviously playing (and in many, though not all) cases winning with them, but that doesn't mean they can't "feel dirty playing them".  People are still fielding other Light Side lists, I used Rebel Characters and performed moderately well, and I came up against one deck of Jedi Characters and one of Rebel Vehicles, but the numbers speak for themselves as far as tournament results go.



#49 chiller087

chiller087

    Member

  • Members
  • 104 posts

Posted 23 May 2014 - 08:21 PM

Also, no one feels bad playing the Freeloaders. They want to win and they will play them because they are competitive. Otherwise, use your created minds and make something of your own (still almost impossible to do since we all have access to the same amount of cards).

 

I'm going to go out on a limb here and conclude that, since you can't read people's minds or hearts, you're not in much of a position to say what people were feeling when they played the Dash-Freeholder combo.  I certainly didn't enjoy playing them, and almost nobody in our local meta (~15 players or so) enjoyed it either (except my wife, haha).  Those "explosive starts" that would win on turn 2 didn't feel fun, even if you were the player who won.

 

It felt noticeably different from say, using Rogue 3 with Wedge and an Astromech Upgrade to get an early jump on your opponent.  That was much harder to pull off and could still go very wrong if not played properly.  Multiple HAtC + Freeholders + Outmaneuver + more Freeholders just felt stupid, and left a bad taste in everyone's mouth, in our area.



#50 chiller087

chiller087

    Member

  • Members
  • 104 posts

Posted 23 May 2014 - 08:28 PM

Looking at the results from the last round of regionals, there are players who posted 70+% win rates with their dark side decks against fields dominated by this combo.  Perhaps the real problem isn't the pure power level of the deck but the high end of what it's capable of.  Given that, it's possible that design/development and/or playtesting did see the deck, but that in the playtest environment it didn't hit the insane opening enough times and was beatable enough the rest of the time that it got passed through (or passed through with changes that weren't quite enough).  But when it hits the wild and literally everyone at some tournaments is running the deck it becomes clear that the combo does happen too often (or that even happening rarely is proving to be too much for the meta).  That would explain why they didn't allow running a 1/1 split as I've seen some people suggest should have happened.  1/1 would make the crazy start still possible, though much less likely...

 

Yeah, but FFG has a business to run, and so they need to see past what the high-level players are doing.  They need more people to keep buying their product, and this Dash-Freeholders nonsense is exactly the kind of thing to drive away new players who don't have the experience to develop counters to it yet.  When there's a bazillion games on the market to choose from, it's easy for a new player who's still experimenting to conclude that the uphill battle of learning to play against something like the Dash-Holders (or to make an LS deck that works just as fast) isn't worth their time or money, and they'll just move on to something else.  Star Wars LCG is already a drop in the bucket compared to other games, and FFG just can't afford to lose more players.



#51 dbmeboy

dbmeboy

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,302 posts

Posted 23 May 2014 - 08:36 PM

I wasn't trying to say that the restricted list was necessarily a bad thing (that's a different question). I was just trying to offer a reasonable situation where the combo could appear Ok in playtest (as the testers were able to beat it) but then end up being a problem in the wild.

#52 chiller087

chiller087

    Member

  • Members
  • 104 posts

Posted 23 May 2014 - 08:44 PM

I wasn't trying to say that the restricted list was necessarily a bad thing (that's a different question). I was just trying to offer a reasonable situation where the combo could appear Ok in playtest (as the testers were able to beat it) but then end up being a problem in the wild.

 

Well in that case, I'll agree 100% with you. I'd bet that's exactly what happened.



#53 dbmeboy

dbmeboy

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,302 posts

Posted 24 May 2014 - 07:59 AM

There are of course other reasonable ways it could be missed. I don't know how many testers there are, but the sad fact might be that they didn't have enough collective time to dedicate to this combo to show that it's broken. They're likely trying to test out a ton of different possibilities and may not have gotten the reps in to see how big of a problem this deck could be. To be completely fair to FFG and the playtesters, I'm sure they don't have nearly the man-hours available to test as, say, WotC has for Magic. WotC still misses things... Maybe this is a combo that should have been given more time and messed with more (we don't know if it was worse in testing and tone down), but we don't know how many broken combos are discovered and caught in testing that we never see.

I know I'm probably being too generous, but I've met Nate and Eric at GenCon last year and in general I like to assume that they and the testers really are trying to make this a great game. They responded swiftly and decisively when it became clear that there was a problem, and I can't ask for much more.
  • GroggyGolem likes this

#54 See Threebilbo

See Threebilbo

    Member

  • Members
  • 244 posts

Posted 25 May 2014 - 08:54 AM

I'm just an echo chamber in this kind of thread, really, but I do think there have been some good points all around.  I've been really vacillating over the issue for a while, myself, and I think that's the point: issues like this come up in games.  Their doing so is simply the nature of the beast.  Whenever I want to point the finger at someone (the designers/developers, playtesters, even people who play the dang combo) I always find myself pausing.  I don't think there's a clear-cut way from A to B here, and that's okay.  The problem has been stopped, at least for now. 

 

Also, dbmeboy's "in the wild" has me inserting the cards into Pokémon quotes.  That'll probably be with me for the whole day.  Blah. :P


  • Budgernaut likes this

#55 dbmeboy

dbmeboy

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,302 posts

Posted 25 May 2014 - 12:12 PM

I choose you, Freeholders!

 

:D


  • Budgernaut likes this

#56 KennedyHawk

KennedyHawk

    Member

  • Members
  • 229 posts

Posted 25 May 2014 - 12:38 PM

A wild Icetromper appears!


  • Budgernaut likes this

#57 See Threebilbo

See Threebilbo

    Member

  • Members
  • 244 posts

Posted 25 May 2014 - 05:57 PM

A wild LUKE SKYWALKER appears!

 

JABBA used RANCOR PIT BUTTON.

 

It's not very effective...


  • Budgernaut and Raahk like this

#58 0Zidane0

0Zidane0

    Member

  • Members
  • 4 posts

Posted 28 May 2014 - 09:27 AM

Luckily, I only play with my friends, and we'll be ignoring the restricted list. I mean, those sets were designed to play in the same deck together. It's called synergy. Sure it's really powerful combo, but why not just make good combos for the other factions, instead of teasing us with good combos we can't legally use anymore?



#59 Buhallin

Buhallin

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,238 posts

Posted 28 May 2014 - 09:50 AM

why not just make good combos for the other factions, instead of teasing us with good combos we can't legally use anymore?

Because even if they have counters already in the pipeline for this set, we'd be looking at several months of dominant Freeholders, which would carry throughout the entire Regional season. Worse, if they really did miss this and don't have anything in the current cycle to deal with it, the design and production times mean it could be six months or more before anything came out to tone it down. For a game that already has a reputation for iffy balance, that could be devastating.

It can also be very bad for a game to just bring everything up to that power level. One of the major complaints about the combo is that a decent draw could basically end the game on the first turn. What do you do to counter that? Give every faction a one-turn win combo? The problem with speed in card games is that the only way to deal with it is more speed, and once you get there it's nothing but a question of who draws into their über combo first.

#60 See Threebilbo

See Threebilbo

    Member

  • Members
  • 244 posts

Posted 28 May 2014 - 10:37 AM

Quick shoutout in appreciation for the umlaut!






© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS