Jump to content



Photo

Distribution


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
107 replies to this topic

#21 Scautura

Scautura

    Member

  • Members
  • 12 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 01:47 AM

signoftheserpent said:

 

profligate said:

 

Sign of the Serpent shows a clear lack of understanding of LCG's.  This isn't a CCG.  Period.

 

Yes it is. All that is different is the name. It's exactly the same thing, whether it's called a TCG or an LCG or a CCG. They are all the same. The only variant is some aspects of distribution.

 

 

 

signoftheserpent said:

 

Yes it is. All that is different is the name. It's exactly the same thing, whether it's called a TCG or an LCG or a CCG. They are all the same. The only variant is some aspects of distribution.

 

 

No, it isn't. Distribution is part of the definition. What you said was "It's exactly the same thing, whether it's called an apple or an orange or a peach. They are all the same. The only variant is some aspects of taste." (Go ahead, say I'm putting words in your mouth; I'm making a specific point.)

A LCG has a fixed distribution. You and Joe buy a starter set each, and you both get the same cards. Identical in every way. You both buy booster 1, and booster 2. You still both have exactly the same cards. You've both spent the same money (theoretically, as long as you bought from the same place. We'll leave the vagaries of retail out of this) for the same items. You are as competitive as each other.

A CCG/TCG has random distribution. You and Joe buy a starter set each, and have the same cards (although this is relatively recent - I remember buying starters with different cards and random distribution). You both buy 5 boosters. You get 5 copies of the same rare, he gets 5 different rares. Because of how his deck is structured, only one of those 5 is useful to him. You, however, have yours structured to use all 5. You are more competitive, but have spent the same money.

Going further, you could buy a thousand boosters, and never get the one rare you need to complete a deck to the specification you want. And that is because you're gambling on unseen cards in a sealed pack. You never know what you're going to get. With an LCG, you know you're going to get specific cards in a starter, and specific cards in a specific booster (which you only have to buy once).

Don't use the distribution stick to beat a dead horse, it's been done a thousand times over the last few years with the various LCGs. They are not CCGs, by definition. If you don't want to buy it because you're a completionist, that's completely fine, but in answer to your initial question of "enough copies"? Yes, you do.

I play single starter, and I've played against those with two or three. I've won and lost games against both, but at no point did I feel like I was missing out because I didn't have three of everything. I played original Netrunner when it was a CCG, and I couldn't afford to shell out for booster after booster. I still won games against people who spent twenty times or more what I did, because I played what I had. I didn't "what if" or "if only", and the game is well balanced.

Play the game, see if you enjoy it. There's no point buying it if you don't. If you do, then swallow your pride and pick up a core set, maybe two (and from what others have said, you should be able to find two for the MSRP of one) and keep on enjoying.

EDIT: Freaking ninja'd! That's what I get for writing War and Peace!



#22 signoftheserpent

signoftheserpent

    Member

  • Members
  • 766 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 07:28 AM

I find the attitude of the fanboys incredibly rude 'swallow your pride'? You dont' know what you are talking about.

It doesn't matter how amazing the game is; FFG's decision to curtail distribution as they have is - again - a bad decision. That they keep doing this is bizarre and ill informed. Anyone with any experience playing these games will know just how much of a mistake that is. You should never curtail deckbuilding options like this.



#23 Toqtamish

Toqtamish

    Toqtamish

  • Members
  • 3,088 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 08:10 AM

You're not curtailed anymore than if you decide to only buy 10 booster packs instead of 30.



#24 signoftheserpent

signoftheserpent

    Member

  • Members
  • 766 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 09:09 AM

I don't get this attitude at all. People seem to be acting as if any criticism posted would compel FFG to take their game away from them.

The core set is incomplete. You always need as many copies of every card as you can run in a single deck (at least, personally any more IMO is silly). That's how card games work. You need the options. Expecting people not to take the game that seriously is doing yourself a huge disservice. Unfortunately FFG don't see it that way, and for no reason i can discern.

This may be a great game, but since it's publishers have made what i consider to be a very flawed decision and since it can be played online without needing the actual product…



#25 vermillian

vermillian

    Member

  • Members
  • 882 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 03:19 PM

again, sign, can you play magic the gathering with a single purchase? Is a booster pack an incomplete distribution?

The core set is fully playable. By design. it IS customizable, quite a fair bit. Is it a fixed distribution, curtailing blind purchases that plague CCGs? Yes. It satisfies all FFG promised it to be.

You seem to be asking us to apologize for something we don't see as a 'mistake', but you do. That is your opinion. We are operating on different levels of expectation, and each time we try to iterate that, we perceive you to be reacting in a way that is further and further from indicating that you understand our point of view.

I understand your point of view. Your definition is that 'playable' means 3x of a card. FOr some people it means 6x (so they can make two decks with 3 of some cards). Some people feel the core set is a complete set. Perception. Please try to understand our point of view. Thanks.



#26 signoftheserpent

signoftheserpent

    Member

  • Members
  • 766 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 08:35 PM

I've no idea, I don't play Magic nor am I interested in doing so. What Magic, or any other product, does is completely irrelevant. I have also not said that you can't play this game without 3 copies either. That is also not the point.

having at least 3x (if you want 6x, go for it, that's a separate issue as well) is essential if you want to play the game seriously because you will need those choices to hand. I will not countenance any game that operates in that way, whether it's 3x or 4x or whatever, that doesn't give you any way to get those cards but to buy multiple copies of the core set like this, especially when that means buying increasing amounts of cards you won't use. It's not even as if you could trade for these cards. This was a huge oversight and I would love to know what FFG's reasoning on this is.



#27 Saturnine

Saturnine

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,558 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 09:25 PM

signoftheserpent said:

 

 This was a huge oversight and I would love to know what FFG's reasoning on this is.

 

 

Despite my better judgement, I'll indulge you. My guess? They stand to gain more by offering a reasonably priced and balanced starter set that gets people into the game than offering an overpriced or unbalanced starter set that turns people off the game.

Clearly, you feel strongly about this and seem to not want to get into the game for the reasons you stated, so I think we all win if you just move on and find another game and community that you feel comfortable endorsing.



#28 Eldil

Eldil

    Member

  • Members
  • 174 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 06:56 AM

This thread started me thinking:

Has there ever been a customizable game (a game in which you "build" your deck/force before playing) that offered a full playset in the introductory box? I ran down the list of the most popular customizable games on BGG, but I didn't find any that offered a full playset:

Android: Netrunner - no

Summoner Wars - no

Mage Wars - no? (not sure about this one)

Lord of the Rings - no

Heroscape - no

Netrunner (original) - no

Dungeon Command - no

A Game of Thrones - no

Warhammer: Invasion - no

(If I'm wrong about any of the above, feel free to correct me with a strong blow to the face).

I ask because I think it's fair to put FFG's distribution system in context with other popular games of a similar type in the market. It seems like most of the games above offer a fixed distribution, non-full-playset "game-in-a-box," (I think Magic offers this with fixed distribution decks, right?). If we're going to call FFG's core set distribution "bad," then is there any company that produces customizable games that made a "good" decision in this regard?



#29 papy72

papy72

    Member

  • Members
  • 44 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 08:05 AM

I can't speak for everyone, but I for one was burned out on the CCG model of distribution.  I played the original Netrunner and Lord of the Rings TCG competitively at the local level.  I spent hundreds of dollars on card sets and doubt I could ever say I had a "full" play set of anything.  I simply couldn't shell out enough $$ to stay competitive, so both games had to go.

When Netrunner came out my first thought was "holy smokes someone republished it".  My second thought was "I'm not going to buy back into THAT crack habit" (i.e. buying box after box of boosters).  A month later I decided to actually research it and discovered the LCG distribution model.  Now I own two starter sets, my FLGS has my name on their list to pre-order the expansion packs, and I'm trying to get something going locally.

So while I generally agree that the distribution of the starters isn't perfect, I think it is good enough and promotes the game well.



#30 Messenger

Messenger

    Member

  • Members
  • 224 posts

Posted 13 December 2012 - 07:45 PM

Okay: the Core Set is "incomplete".

 

Furthermore, when it comes to the new Data Packs, Identity Cards come in 3 when you only need 1 of each.

As per your opinion, signoftheserpent, you have no reason to get into the physical version of the game.

There. Done. No more argument, no more drama.

(Messenger goes back to eagerly looking forward to What Lies Ahead and figuring out how to integrate What Lies Ahead with his decks made from his one, single Core Set.)



#31 Keggy

Keggy

    Member

  • Members
  • 311 posts

Posted 13 December 2012 - 08:23 PM

Why do people bother answering these threads with arguments when we can just link to any (or all) of the dozens of threads this has already been discussed in?  Topics like these have been argued to death in numerous threads in every other LCG forum, you would think someone would just creat a thread in the general LCG forum with links to every "I'm uspest with the core set" or "I want a completion pack" thread so we can just point at it.  Are the "I'm mad at getting 3 copies of X card" threads too new to be included alongside the previous two topics?



#32 Messenger

Messenger

    Member

  • Members
  • 224 posts

Posted 13 December 2012 - 08:51 PM

Because most of us- whether thread OPs or responders- are too lazy to look them up and link them. This is not completely unjustified as even with a search function, it's easy for similar topics to be buried by time.

It's also because we usually expect a quick reply to suffice and not escalate into a larger and more heated debate. There are various reasons for this, but in general it's because we assume that the other person is reasonable, and is interested enough in the topic that the replies we give will easily tilt their opinions in the same direction ours is.



#33 Saturnine

Saturnine

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,558 posts

Posted 13 December 2012 - 09:37 PM

Keggy said:

 

Why do people bother answering these threads with arguments when we can just link to any (or all) of the dozens of threads this has already been discussed in? 

 

 

Because we are idiots and think we can sway somebody's negative opinion in the hope of growing the community, not realizing they are not interested in a discussion but simply want to impose their point of view on the forum members who can do nothing about it instead of taking his beef to FFG by contacting their customer service and leaving us the hell alone to enjoy the game.



#34 signoftheserpent

signoftheserpent

    Member

  • Members
  • 766 posts

Posted 14 December 2012 - 04:23 AM

Saturnine said:

 

Keggy said:

 

Why do people bother answering these threads with arguments when we can just link to any (or all) of the dozens of threads this has already been discussed in? 

 

 

Because we are idiots and think we can sway somebody's negative opinion in the hope of growing the community, not realizing they are not interested in a discussion but simply want to impose their point of view on the forum members who can do nothing about it instead of taking his beef to FFG by contacting their customer service and leaving us the hell alone to enjoy the game.

 

Do you think that's even a fair comment? Telling someone they aren't interested in discussion when they have made the effort to post in the first place.

 

I would be very interested in playing the game. I haven't once said anything about the game itself. If i wasn't interested in it I wouldn't have posted at all. But the distribution is obviously a factor - that's why it gets mentioned a lot. It bothers people. Criticising people for that seems entirely churlish and quite unfair. I see no reason why things couldn't have been done differently. Unless the game has lots of search engines, you need the multiples. Cardgames are about the deckbuilding more than the actual play. Consequently you need those options unless the game's mechanics mitigate this. It's just arbitrary and frankly self defeating to do things as FFG has: it is either a blatant cash grab which makes it all seem like double dipping which is grubby and not entirely honest imo, or it's ill thought through. The only option to get the cards you need to is through an economy of loss. Trading isn't really going to be much of an option because pretty much everyone, i imagine, would want all the cards anyway which means everyone is after the same cards. That's the problem here. With traditional starter decks you are buying a smaller pool of cards and so paying less. That could have been the case here: two starter sets one which, say 2 runner and 2 corporations (lets assume you have 4 runners and 4 corps, not 3 runners) with 3x. That way the package is smaller and costs less and so butying both isn't necessary for a complete set of 3x and people who want everything can buy everything. That's just one suggestion. This distribution really spoilt the LotR lcg experience which is why i sold the game on after about a week; I didn't want to but my options were completely curtailed because of this arbitrary decision making which was a real shame.

And iv'e just looked at Esdevium Games' latest release sheet (as i do each week) and there is no ANR expansion listed for next week.



#35 Toqtamish

Toqtamish

    Toqtamish

  • Members
  • 3,088 posts

Posted 14 December 2012 - 04:58 AM

signoftheserpent said:

And iv'e just looked at Esdevium Games' latest release sheet (as i do each week) and there is no ANR expansion listed for next week.

 

Probably because it already released this week. http://www.fantasyfl...s.asp?eidn=3800



#36 signoftheserpent

signoftheserpent

    Member

  • Members
  • 766 posts

Posted 14 December 2012 - 05:01 AM

Not in the UK it didn't.



#37 Toqtamish

Toqtamish

    Toqtamish

  • Members
  • 3,088 posts

Posted 14 December 2012 - 05:04 AM

signoftheserpent said:

Not in the UK it didn't.

 

Well yes anywhere outside of the US will take longer for it to arrive of course. I don't think it has arrived here locally either but I am not in the US. Full spoiler has been up for a couple of days.



#38 Saturnine

Saturnine

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,558 posts

Posted 14 December 2012 - 05:19 AM

signoftheserpent said:

 

Do you think that's even a fair comment? Telling someone they aren't interested in discussion when they have made the effort to post in the first place.

 

 

Ignoring what other people are saying and continuing to rant based on your notions on how to publish and promote an LCG is not a discussion. What are you hoping to get out of this? You disagree with FFGs way to publish their game, take it to FFGs customer service or start a petition if you really feel strongly about it and expect you'll be able to change their business model with enough support. This thread is accomplishing nothing.



#39 signoftheserpent

signoftheserpent

    Member

  • Members
  • 766 posts

Posted 14 December 2012 - 07:52 AM

Then don't read it.



#40 Keggy

Keggy

    Member

  • Members
  • 311 posts

Posted 14 December 2012 - 08:50 AM

So sign, what would you have done differently with the Netrunner core set? 

Would you have had less unique cards in the set, but had them each at 3 copies each?  While this would keep the price point about the same, it would have limited variety for both deckbuilding and its lasting ability as a stand alone product (many buy it as a standalone product).  The stunted card pool would definitely hurt the launch of the game as a collectible game.  There is also a decent possibility that the decks included wouldn't be properly balanced at 3 copies of each card contained.

 

Would you have left the same number of unique cards in the set, but had all at 3 copies each?  Would you include 3 copies of the identity cards as well, since that seems to be a touchy subject for many people.  Keeping the same card list but bumping all to 3 copies (with or without the identities) would definitely increase the cost of the core set, pushing it beyond the justifiable budget range of more casual players.  Lower sales put the future of the game into jeopardy.  The problem of balancing starter decks remains.  Since people don't like to read the rulebook to figure which cards to put in and which to leave out, the few casual players that do pick it up will be put off and/or confused by having a pile of cards they are "not supposed to use" (its not hard to find threads of people not sure how to assemble the starter decks already).

Or would you have done something else entirely?






© 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