Jump to content



Photo

Distribution


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

#41 Eldil

Eldil

    Member

  • Members
  • 174 posts

Posted 14 December 2012 - 09:45 AM

signoftheserpent said:

It's just arbitrary and frankly self defeating to do things as FFG has.

@signoftheserpent

I don't think it's accurate to call the core set distribution either arbitrary or self-defeating.

a) Arbitrary: The core set distribution represents (in my opinion) an attempt at offering both a diversity of options with a consistency of play. So the core set decks contain 3x of "staple" cards (Sure Gamble, Diesel, Cyberfeeder, Easy Mark, etc) and 1x of cards which tended to have lower utility in multiples (over half of them are unique, so can't be played in multiples). This demonstrates a very intentional design towards creating an out-of-the-box experience, which you can critisize, but I don't think you can rightfully call it "arbitrary."

b) Self-Defeating: If the mark of "defeat" is poor sales, then this the Core Set is obviously not self-defeating. It's sold far better than they ever expected it to (judging by the Gencon rush). Of course, if you define "success" by "providing a complete playset in a box," then the Core Set is self-defeating, but I don't think that was FFG's criteria for success.

I was curious if you had any answers to the question in my previous post: is there another collectible/customizable card game that offers a complete playset in a box?



#42 Toqtamish

Toqtamish

    Toqtamish

  • Members
  • 3,132 posts

Posted 14 December 2012 - 10:11 AM

signoftheserpent said:

Then don't read it.

signoftheserpent said:

Then don't read it.

 

If you don't want us to read it if we don't agree with you and you are not willing to see any other side of the debate then I fail to see what you are trying to accomplish at this point. This is the Netrunner forums, of course those of us here like the game already. You don't you have made that abundantly clear so let's all just move on.



#43 vermillian

vermillian

    Member

  • Members
  • 882 posts

Posted 14 December 2012 - 05:16 PM

How do you define 'complete'?

Each anachronism game purchase came with exactly as many cards of that pack / release that you could use (1 of each).

Also to accuse a company of 'money grubbing' reeks of socialism or anti free martket philosophy… This is a company. It has to make money somehow. It is not its requirement to provide you with the cards. It is its requirement to make money in the process of that product. Just my opinion.

But I am interested in your model for this game's alternative distribution.

And how would you distribute Vampire the Eternal Struggle, which has NO deck limit for cards?



#44 signoftheserpent

signoftheserpent

    Member

  • Members
  • 776 posts

Posted 14 December 2012 - 08:55 PM

What other side is there? FFG made an arbitrary decision and the consequence is that the only way to get those cards is to buy another, entire, core set. I don't understand how that is something to be happy about. It's a bad decision. If they released those extra cards as a separate pack for a few bucks more that would be something, but they don't even do that. Even if you brought the cards separately online (if there's anywhere selling singles) the prie would be the same because that's what they are worth, if not more. There is no rationale that explains why you would just include fewer multiples than the maximum. The game would be no less playable if it had 3x everything and you could easily have done so for no more than an extra ten dollars. If this is about the size of print sheets then do as I suggested earlier and have a smaller core set at a smaller cost. That way companion sets would not be prohibitive. Asking me what I'd do is really moot however since I have no influence and cannot undo what FFG has decided. We are also not talking about other games so it's irrelevant what Vampire does. I doubt veery much whether i'd countenance a design allowing for unlimited multiples. That's what the original Star Wars ccg did and having to acquire multiple ultra rares or powerful mains was utterly ridiculous.



#45 profligate

profligate

    Member

  • Members
  • 90 posts

Posted 14 December 2012 - 11:13 PM

It's also what the original Netrunner CCG did.



#46 Messenger

Messenger

    Member

  • Members
  • 224 posts

Posted 15 December 2012 - 04:04 AM

Guys, it's not worth it.



#47 papy72

papy72

    Member

  • Members
  • 46 posts

Posted 15 December 2012 - 04:44 AM

I think all of this debating has clouded the core ideal behind the distribution method.  Everyone is hung up trying to either demonize or defend FFG's distribution method for the starters.

When I looked at the game I ask myself "Is this distribution method is better than the CCG model"?.  It may not be the "best" model from either the perspective of the player (who wants a full playset) OR FFG's perspective (who wants to create a product to accomplish specific goal and maintain profitability).  But I don't think any of us could argue that the CCG model is better.

And in that regard I think the product is a huge winner.



#48 radiskull

radiskull

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,360 posts

Posted 15 December 2012 - 05:53 AM

So far, this thread has taken the exact same direction that every other of the dozens of thread on this topic has taken.  So far, no one has put forth any new arguments or explanations.

Nor has the complaining been qualitatively different.

Can we put these threads to rest?



#49 signoftheserpent

signoftheserpent

    Member

  • Members
  • 776 posts

Posted 15 December 2012 - 06:40 AM

People will discuss what they see as worth discussing. Noone has been rude or offensive so I don't have a problem with it.

 

Anyway I have decided on balance to try the game. I do not care for FFG's decisions, they are a company that continually shoots itself in the foot in this way (great ideas but always with a sting in the tail unfortunately), and I do not stand by whatever motivated the distribution of this game, however.



#50 vermillian

vermillian

    Member

  • Members
  • 882 posts

Posted 15 December 2012 - 07:05 AM

Whatr is interesting is that you claimed this distrubution was arbitrary. I highly doubt that that was what it was. Your continued negative comments regarding things that can be explained logically (arbitrary and the previous comment you made about them trying to steal our monies or some such) is what bothers ME about this thread, and it seems that you are being rude. However, it is likely that you are just letting your disdain for this distribution model cloud your discussion and what words you chose.

Your alternative solution was what then? Do what they have just done here (core set) and then have one additional pack of cards where in which they can buy the extras needed to 'complete' the collection? Have you discussed this with FFG yet?

And how are other models of distribution irrelevant? We are talking about distribution here, and comparisons are often a key point of argument formation.



#51 signoftheserpent

signoftheserpent

    Member

  • Members
  • 776 posts

Posted 15 December 2012 - 07:31 AM

My buying the game does not invalidate my opinion on the distribution. It sucks, plain and simple. There is no reason to short change customers and to not at the very least make the extra cards available in some way.

I've played card games for many years including against world champions and people far better than I. I know how these games work and I can tell you that if you want it to succeed there will need to be the kind of interest in the game that informs people wanting 3x every card. Not providing that is short changing the player. All this means is there will be people that will happily buy 3x core sets just for 20 extra cards. That is not a good thing for the community at all; you talk about the core set designed to provide an 'in' for new players, but if people buy 2 or more copies of that set you then have a small 'elite' hoarding copies of the game that would and should otherwise have gone to expanding the playerbase. I've seen this happen before; the people i used to play with would ruotinely buy 4 or more boxes of every expansion as soon as possible. They would hoard cards for theior collection and not trade (as you might with the core set, though frankly that's not a good way either to encourage new players - they might miss out on the faction they'd be best suited to in order to trade for something else).



#52 Keggy

Keggy

    Member

  • Members
  • 311 posts

Posted 15 December 2012 - 09:41 AM

LCG players buying excessive core sets to hoarde the cards and keep them from other people?  I actually laughed out loud.



#53 signoftheserpent

signoftheserpent

    Member

  • Members
  • 776 posts

Posted 15 December 2012 - 09:43 AM

Keggy said:

LCG players buying excessive core sets to hoarde the cards and keep them from other people?  I actually laughed out loud.

That's not what I said though. I said they buy the core sets to get enough multiples. the consequence is that there are less core sets to go around. that's funny to you?



#54 vermillian

vermillian

    Member

  • Members
  • 882 posts

Posted 15 December 2012 - 05:24 PM

They will buy, at most, two extra core sets. It is highly unlikely that they or that this technique will break a community and make other core sets unattainable.

You keep using biased words like 'short change'. They are not short changing people. They are offering the product as advertised.

You haven't addressed some of the concerns and questions I asked.

I did not say your purchase invalidates your concern.



#55 Toqtamish

Toqtamish

    Toqtamish

  • Members
  • 3,132 posts

Posted 16 December 2012 - 03:29 AM

I agree with Messenger. Lets all stop feeding the troll. 



#56 radiskull

radiskull

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,360 posts

Posted 16 December 2012 - 09:39 AM

Toqtamish said:

I agree with Messenger. Lets all stop feeding the troll. 

About 50 replies too late, but I wholeheartedly agree.



#57 signoftheserpent

signoftheserpent

    Member

  • Members
  • 776 posts

Posted 16 December 2012 - 10:10 AM

vermillian said:

They will buy, at most, two extra core sets. It is highly unlikely that they or that this technique will break a community and make other core sets unattainable.

You keep using biased words like 'short change'. They are not short changing people. They are offering the product as advertised.

You haven't addressed some of the concerns and questions I asked.

I did not say your purchase invalidates your concern.

I gave you alternatives that FFG could have tried.

Why for instance include 3 copies of an 8 cost piece of ice, but only 2 copies of a card that costs zero?

Why even include cards in a single multiple? Two cards? Ok that's not the end of the world, but why include 1 copy of a card that really isn't much use alone.

There are 4 corp factions, but only 3 runners. They could have saved one of the corps for an expansion and used those 28 cards to beef out the remainder.



#58 profligate

profligate

    Member

  • Members
  • 90 posts

Posted 16 December 2012 - 11:06 AM

They could have done lots of things.  They chose not to.  Your points have either been noted or not by the powers that be.  Dragging this out is a waste of everyone's time and energy.  You seem like a reasonably analytical and intelligent person, outside of this debate.  Please direct your energies towards useful discussions of the game.



#59 vermillian

vermillian

    Member

  • Members
  • 882 posts

Posted 16 December 2012 - 01:56 PM

I do see what you are saying about the corporation though. However, what FFG appeared to want was a core set that was playable with easily understood rules on how to make the decks such that they'd be balanced on creating. Apparently 3X each card copied into the core set made a game that wasn't as good……?

Have you emailed any of the designers or employees of FFG on this matter? Several of them are on face book…



#60 signoftheserpent

signoftheserpent

    Member

  • Members
  • 776 posts

Posted 16 December 2012 - 09:14 PM

I haven't emailed anyone, I don't use facebook. Unfortunately FFG don't ever seem to read the feedback given on their own forums.

I can't imagine they would change their minds: obviously they feel they made the best decisions and certainly wouldn't admit to anything less than honest.

Corporation decks would have greatly benefitted from there only being 3 factions IMO. As it stands, all of them have to rely on a much leaner choice of cards and I'm not convinced, from what I've seen, that they can exploit their specialties as well as they should. I bet most people ignore the one or two cards that their faction only has one of completely and give that space to something else. None of the corps have enough factional agendas to build a deck (you can't use other factions agendas). That's a big deal. IT's not unplayable, but it loses what makes it special. For instance the Weyland deck uses transactions to generate income, but there are only 4 transaction cards available to it. I therefore would overlook Weyland for another choice until such time as enough transaction cards become available. That's a shame. So why include Weyland? Why not retask those cards and spread them across the other 3 facrtions? The smaller corp decks also mean that building a strong 45 card deck (the most they can include is 20 points worth of agendas so deck size is limited) is harder which waters them down. That's a shame, because fewer of the game's mechanics shine through.






© 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