Jump to content



Photo

This game IS AFFORDABLE


  • Please log in to reply
48 replies to this topic

#21 snaggrriss

snaggrriss

    Member

  • Members
  • 124 posts

Posted 26 February 2013 - 03:20 PM

Is Netrunner pure bluffing. yes. Bluffing in thrones is more in plot phase, which is a very important part of the game. Challenge phase the bluffing is through what events you might be holding. YOu say the challenge phase a little predictable. What about in netrunner when i call your bluffs and reveal your ice, then it's just resource speed bumps after that. There's cards to reveal what you're hiding to counter those bluffs. After that it's " i need 10 resources to make a run and 5 to trash that annoying herring and then steal you're agenda and gamble it's not agressive secretary."

I'm glad you're still  part of the gaming community by choosing warhammer. Let's take a sport i hate. I hate soccer. I DO love football . Where i live they play soccer every week. They even rent a gym to play it indoors during the winter. (You're probably scratching your head"i thought he lives in Canada and everyone plays hockey?") Now personally i love football. It seems i'm living in the wrong country.I will play soccer every once and a while but never really enjoy it. I do it for the exercise. There's not enough friends to play ( unless you join some touch league Bb), so twice a year we take a trip to meet some other guys and get a couple weekends of football in. I refuse to support soccer because i think it's a sissy sport. Should i play  because more people are playing it? NO! It's still a sissy sport( in my opinion it's ballet on cleats. I apologize if i offended any). Every time i play i feel like i would enjoy myself more running stairs. I believe it's better to play something you enjoy even if it's with only 1 other person. the only flaw with this argument is if they move away on you, then yes, playing because of more people does carry some weight. But then that goes against why we play games- for fun. But then there's the uber competitve player type who play a game because of the better prizes.

You're actually the first person who's defended Magics game mechanics.  If only they spent the same attention to details as the flavor text. You're really going to argue the monetary advantages of Magic? c'mon!

So why are you still on the thrones message boards? If you don't like it leave. Come back when you get bored of Netrunner. Also about the deck playing you. How did you fare at worlds. I wasn't there. i'm not a tier 1 deck builder. If John Bruno was here telling me the flaws of the game i would do some soul searching. But hey , what can i say , I love this game. Been playing for few years. Keeps on getting better. Even after i've played considerable amount of other lcgs.  Something to be said about bruno playing both games though.  I'm happy that you like magic and netrunner.-- CHEERS



#22 Bomb

Bomb

    Cool Person Club

  • Members
  • 1,758 posts

Posted 26 February 2013 - 04:15 PM

I tried net runner one time but it ended up being about as much fun as a scrotal rash. I also don't know anybody that plays netrunner and everyone I play with plays agot.

#23 mdc273

mdc273

    Member

  • Members
  • 973 posts

Posted 28 February 2013 - 05:19 AM

snaggrriss said:

Is Netrunner pure bluffing. yes. Bluffing in thrones is more in plot phase, which is a very important part of the game. Challenge phase the bluffing is through what events you might be holding. YOu say the challenge phase a little predictable. What about in netrunner when i call your bluffs and reveal your ice, then it's just resource speed bumps after that. There's cards to reveal what you're hiding to counter those bluffs. After that it's " i need 10 resources to make a run and 5 to trash that annoying herring and then steal you're agenda and gamble it's not agressive secretary."

I'm glad you're still  part of the gaming community by choosing warhammer. Let's take a sport i hate. I hate soccer. I DO love football . Where i live they play soccer every week. They even rent a gym to play it indoors during the winter. (You're probably scratching your head"i thought he lives in Canada and everyone plays hockey?") Now personally i love football. It seems i'm living in the wrong country.I will play soccer every once and a while but never really enjoy it. I do it for the exercise. There's not enough friends to play ( unless you join some touch league Bb), so twice a year we take a trip to meet some other guys and get a couple weekends of football in. I refuse to support soccer because i think it's a sissy sport. Should i play  because more people are playing it? NO! It's still a sissy sport( in my opinion it's ballet on cleats. I apologize if i offended any). Every time i play i feel like i would enjoy myself more running stairs. I believe it's better to play something you enjoy even if it's with only 1 other person. the only flaw with this argument is if they move away on you, then yes, playing because of more people does carry some weight. But then that goes against why we play games- for fun. But then there's the uber competitve player type who play a game because of the better prizes.

You're actually the first person who's defended Magics game mechanics.  If only they spent the same attention to details as the flavor text. You're really going to argue the monetary advantages of Magic? c'mon!

So why are you still on the thrones message boards? If you don't like it leave. Come back when you get bored of Netrunner. Also about the deck playing you. How did you fare at worlds. I wasn't there. i'm not a tier 1 deck builder. If John Bruno was here telling me the flaws of the game i would do some soul searching. But hey , what can i say , I love this game. Been playing for few years. Keeps on getting better. Even after i've played considerable amount of other lcgs.  Something to be said about bruno playing both games though.  I'm happy that you like magic and netrunner.-- CHEERS

snaggrriss said:

Is Netrunner pure bluffing. yes. Bluffing in thrones is more in plot phase, which is a very important part of the game. Challenge phase the bluffing is through what events you might be holding. YOu say the challenge phase a little predictable. What about in netrunner when i call your bluffs and reveal your ice, then it's just resource speed bumps after that. There's cards to reveal what you're hiding to counter those bluffs. After that it's " i need 10 resources to make a run and 5 to trash that annoying herring and then steal you're agenda and gamble it's not agressive secretary."

I'm glad you're still  part of the gaming community by choosing warhammer. Let's take a sport i hate. I hate soccer. I DO love football . Where i live they play soccer every week. They even rent a gym to play it indoors during the winter. (You're probably scratching your head"i thought he lives in Canada and everyone plays hockey?") Now personally i love football. It seems i'm living in the wrong country.I will play soccer every once and a while but never really enjoy it. I do it for the exercise. There's not enough friends to play ( unless you join some touch league Bb), so twice a year we take a trip to meet some other guys and get a couple weekends of football in. I refuse to support soccer because i think it's a sissy sport. Should i play  because more people are playing it? NO! It's still a sissy sport( in my opinion it's ballet on cleats. I apologize if i offended any). Every time i play i feel like i would enjoy myself more running stairs. I believe it's better to play something you enjoy even if it's with only 1 other person. the only flaw with this argument is if they move away on you, then yes, playing because of more people does carry some weight. But then that goes against why we play games- for fun. But then there's the uber competitve player type who play a game because of the better prizes.

You're actually the first person who's defended Magics game mechanics.  If only they spent the same attention to details as the flavor text. You're really going to argue the monetary advantages of Magic? c'mon!

So why are you still on the thrones message boards? If you don't like it leave. Come back when you get bored of Netrunner. Also about the deck playing you. How did you fare at worlds. I wasn't there. i'm not a tier 1 deck builder. If John Bruno was here telling me the flaws of the game i would do some soul searching. But hey , what can i say , I love this game. Been playing for few years. Keeps on getting better. Even after i've played considerable amount of other lcgs.  Something to be said about bruno playing both games though.  I'm happy that you like magic and netrunner.-- CHEERS

@Kennon regarding plots - I'm not sure I'd call it unique. I played Raw Deal (which came out before A Game of Thrones) and they had a whole pre-game phase that involved revealing cards similar to the plot phase. The plot phase really plays out as an advanced game of Rock, Paper, Scissors. I'm not knocking the plot phase, but I am definitely saying that it's not the most unique thing in the world. It's good for what it is, but you could take it out of the game and I'd probably still enjoy it. The plot phase is currently the phase of super powerful, non-cancellable game effects. I prefer more incremental effects that add up to something significant than the bang of single card effects.

As for the soccer analogy, I'm referring to a player who has no bias and doesn't know anything about either game. Let's say a random person wants to play a sport, but doesn't know anything about sports. They see that soccer is really popular and gridiron football isn't. Why would they choose gridiron football in your area (hell, why wouldn't they choose hockey)? People with a pre-set bias have a reason to do something to which their bias tends. Someone with no bias will tend towards the path of least resistance (in this case soccer or hockey, in gaming it would be Magic).

I can't believe anyone would attack the actual game mechanics of Magic. That's like attacking Citizen Kane as a movie. You're talking about a game that is considered one of the best games of all time and is what originated the whole card game craze. Of course the mechanics are dated, they're 20 years old. On the other hand, they have been pretty much unchanged since the advent of the game and yet the game is still the most popular one out there. Hell, most of this game is based off of Magic mechanics. They made a decision to NOT use LIFO (a decision I disagree with). They made a decision to have only one Marshalling phase (magic has two). They made a decision to not have characters actually hurt each other (in Magic they do). There are so many comparable aspects of this (or any) card game to Magic that it's difficult to not give Magic credit for it's obviously outstanding mechanics. Magic plays incredibly well as a gaming system, whether or not the cards are being designed well. The AGoT system is a hot mess compared to the simple elegance of LIFO.

I'm not sure why my performance at Worlds matters in a theoretical conversation. I don't play tier 1 decks because they're all uninteresting to me. They involve playing a combination of cards that is hyper-powered compared to the more thematic cards. I'm a Timmy-Spike, not a Spike. You should also be aware that John Bruno has retired from these boards since about a year ago, if I recall correctly. If he actually posted here he might have something to say and I would listen. I did not attend worlds because I do not enjoy the game. I wish I had played at Gencon so I could actually confront these questions with an answer of "I did well." I had a very consistent Bear Island/Kindly Man deck that would've been fun to play.

I can tell you I was the fourth place player in the Gencon Icebreaker tournament for Netrunner and lost to the eventual winner in the playoffs. I am a competent and experienced card game player.  I achieved Rival in WoW during the first season of arena (top 15% of arena 2 v 2 players on my server group). I was a key person in my guild getting to and being able to defeat C'thun. I created the strategy for defeating Chromagus in Blackwing Lair and for defeating Battleguard Sartura in Ahn Qiraj, two of the most complicated bosses strategically. My resume for gaming goes on.

Why am I still on the Thrones message boards? Because I want to support people who call them out on their decisions so that there is actual conversation around it and point it out when there isn't.. I want to support negative, constructive criticism and make sure there is some. The more reinforcement an idea gets, the more consideration it gets from designers. I am looking forward to playing AGoT again with this new FAQ. It's people that actually and constructively point things out that have an effect. Saying something mocking and condescending just looks petty.



#24 playgroundpsychotic

playgroundpsychotic

    Member

  • Members
  • 197 posts

Posted 28 February 2013 - 11:19 AM

mdc273 said:

I can't believe anyone would attack the actual game mechanics of Magic. That's like attacking Citizen Kane as a movie. You're talking about a game that is considered one of the best games of all time and is what originated the whole card game craze. Of course the mechanics are dated, they're 20 years old. On the other hand, they have been pretty much unchanged since the advent of the game and yet the game is still the most popular one out there. Hell, most of this game is based off of Magic mechanics. They made a decision to NOT use LIFO (a decision I disagree with). They made a decision to have only one Marshalling phase (magic has two). They made a decision to not have characters actually hurt each other (in Magic they do). There are so many comparable aspects of this (or any) card game to Magic that it's difficult to not give Magic credit for it's obviously outstanding mechanics. Magic plays incredibly well as a gaming system, whether or not the cards are being designed well. The AGoT system is a hot mess compared to the simple elegance of LIFO.

I'm not sure I would compare Magic to Citizen Kane. First, the movie is more interesting than a game of Magic. Second, I would more likely say Magic is more like Birth of a Nation and GoT is more like Schindler's List. The former is important in the development of card games (or movies) but there's something repellant about it. The latter certainly stand's on the shoulders of its predecessor's but made something much more uplifting.

As someone who started casually playing Magic again (stopped because of money) my opinion of the game is unchanged. Its not a bad way to pass the time but its still a game about resource and card starvation. You get one card a turn and you're not guaranteed resources. I imagine a well tuned deck avoids these problems but such a thing costs money. Game of Thrones is a game where resources and draw are guaranteed thus placing more emphasis on player decisions. There's also a great deal more depth to it than Magic. Amongst other card games I've played (Warhammer, Netrunner, Star Wars, Vs, Vampire), Magic is worse than all of them.

Magic continues to be beloved for no other reason than inertia. Its a solid enough game and its well supported and advertised. The lower complexity level of the game may also appeal to more casual players.

GoT's still could use a lot more clamping down on certain things but even as I get frustrated with a few gaffes here and there, the cards are generally more interesting now than in older chapter packs.



#25 mdc273

mdc273

    Member

  • Members
  • 973 posts

Posted 01 March 2013 - 08:22 AM

playgroundpsychotic said:

I'm not sure I would compare Magic to Citizen Kane. First, the movie is more interesting than a game of Magic. Second, I would more likely say Magic is more like Birth of a Nation and GoT is more like Schindler's List. The former is important in the development of card games (or movies) but there's something repellant about it. The latter certainly stand's on the shoulders of its predecessor's but made something much more uplifting.

As someone who started casually playing Magic again (stopped because of money) my opinion of the game is unchanged. Its not a bad way to pass the time but its still a game about resource and card starvation. You get one card a turn and you're not guaranteed resources. I imagine a well tuned deck avoids these problems but such a thing costs money. Game of Thrones is a game where resources and draw are guaranteed thus placing more emphasis on player decisions. There's also a great deal more depth to it than Magic. Amongst other card games I've played (Warhammer, Netrunner, Star Wars, Vs, Vampire), Magic is worse than all of them.

Magic continues to be beloved for no other reason than inertia. Its a solid enough game and its well supported and advertised. The lower complexity level of the game may also appeal to more casual players.

GoT's still could use a lot more clamping down on certain things but even as I get frustrated with a few gaffes here and there, the cards are generally more interesting now than in older chapter packs.

I'm more comparing Magic mechanics to Citizen Kane than the actual gameplay. Mechanically speaking (that is to ignore all the cards) Magic is what every card game pretty much draws its basic concepts from.

I grew tired of Magic as well. It's mostly an exercise in deck construction. AGoT game became that way for me, though. The actual challenges phase had reached a point where it was less important than deck construction. The only interesting phase for me had become the plot phase where I pretty much mastered Loyalty Money Can Buy and Forgotten Plans. That's, maybe, twice a game that I found something interesting to do. The FAQ will hopefully change that.



#26 Desertspiral

Desertspiral

    Member

  • Members
  • 6 posts

Posted 02 March 2013 - 05:06 AM

Hi there,

 

I've found this thread really interesting so far.  I recently started playing AGoT around christmas time last year (2012).  I enjoyed the books and some freinds i was staying with also enjoyed them so i bought a core set and had a few games.  Then i found that I enjoyed the game system, out of the box is seemed pretty fun and I had a sense of connection with the characters and so forth. 

 

SO i bought a couple of the house boxes and built some decks and played htem against each other and we were having a decent time.

Fast forward a couple of months and whilst attending Cancon (in AUS) i went over to the AGoT players and had a couple of games.  After getting destroyed several times over to rapant control mechanics we started talknig about the price and how much it costs to really get into the game and all that.  Given the way the cards are spaced out and everyhting, i was concerned that it would end up being very expensive to play on a competative basis. 

I couldn't beleive it when i was casually told that the buy in was ~1,000 as if it were no matter.  Simply put whether you're rich or poor a thousand dollars is considerable money and not something that you want to be told is the entrance for a given game - even if it is 'relatively cheap to sustain thereafter'. 

I have to say i enjy the game and love the setting, but there are a few things which i find really disconcerting about the whole thing, and after discussing it with the freinds i started the game with we mostly feel the same. 

  • The entry price is really prohibitive, especially the idea that three core sets are needed.
  • The card bloat is phenominal.  The cyclic nature of magic was used earlier in this discussion as a negative, whereas i feel for any game to thrive in a competative setting there needs to be resets and redress to the state of the game on a reasonable time scale.  My favourite game L5R, did this really successfully, and overall it helped the game survive. 
  • Almost every game i've played has ended up is some kind of ridiculous control choke that is extremely unfun, and seems to be endemic of the game as a whole.  The control options are severe and easy to use and they seem (from my limited experience) to outperform rush (generally the counterpoint to control) without trying.  Readily available board resets are also to blame here.
  • The restricted list and banned list are great tools, however, competatively speaking they are band aids when a face lift (reset) is probably more appropriate.
  • Magic might have simple and elegant mechanics that can be confused as boring, its also doesn't (to mk knowledge - since i stopped in 5th), have to diferentiate between 'draw' and 'reveal into hand', as a method of lawyering its way around its own rules.
  • I Like the Barratheons, but apparently they suck at control - ergo they are bottom tier, as with L5r i approached this game with a sense of faction loyalty - so where is the fun in knowing that your faction is on the bottom and likely to stay there outside of jumping through hoops?
  • I went through card DB, and put together a deck i thought would be interesting (if not competative - see above), and then checked all the packs i'd need.  I got pretty sick very fast of seeing that there were ones and two's of the cards i wanted in any given pack.  Sure it's great if you've bene playing from day dog, but the ability to buy singles would be really sweet compared to paying $20 AU for a pack and only needing one or two cards out of it. 

It's almost funny because there is a similar arguement going on regarding table top wargaming at present.  That Warmachine is starting to outsrip warhammer because the entry price (all else equal) is so much more attractive.

Anything that wants to survive needs fuel, and players ar ethe LCG's fuel. 

Anyway, i don't really want to ruffle anyones feathers, and this game is great, that doesn't mean it is without it's issues.  Cost and card bloat are the two major barriers to this game and coincdentally if you fix the latter the first takes care of itself. 

 



#27 Keggy

Keggy

    Member

  • Members
  • 311 posts

Posted 02 March 2013 - 09:01 AM

I still think the best answer is to quit making chapter packs.  Reprint old cycles into a single deluxe box (you can fit 360 cards in there), charge $60 for it, and now both the price and volume of the expansions you buy to get into the game is drastically reduced.  This would also mean no new chapter packs, switching to a distribution method similar to what W:I and CoC are on; though, I would prefer for thrones to get four 180-card expansions a year, instead of the three 155-cards expansions the other two are curretly receiveing.



#28 vermillian

vermillian

    Member

  • Members
  • 882 posts

Posted 02 March 2013 - 06:09 PM

A few comments that were made I don't understand:

How, to make a competetive AGOT deck, could it cost 1000s of dollars? What math takes 1000s of dollars to make ONE deck in an LCG?

I know very few magic players, and I've been asking guys at game stores, store owners and old time players, waht they do with their old MtG cards. Just one of them mentioned that they resell their MtG cards to buy the next standard rotation sets, and, of those, they still have to put some money down to get those other cards.

That MtG has a cash prize pay out: This is like saying "I'm going to pick up Basketball cause there's tons of money for professional players! This hobby will pay for itself!'. Not everyone wants to play in big tournaments. Not everyone will win money (few in fact).

MtG is McDonalds. But it is a McDonalds in a field that requires at least one other person to also have chosen it as their purchse of choice, hence, if it is the biggest, people will hedge their bets and play MtG. That and there is that certain something of nostalgia element. Despite the fact that Monopoly is an abhorant game as far as design and interaction, people still play it for that reason alone.

AGOT core set 40 (30 usually), starter decks in MtG 15 (never hardly ever less). Sure MtG wins. But how many different decks can you make from that 15 MtG buy? Can someone ELSE play with that 15 MtG purchase with you? Does that 15 MtG purchase give you access to a sample of many of the games mechanics and flavor of all of the 'colors' in the game? Is that 15 MtG purchase give you enough decks for a 4 player Multiplayer game?

 

This thread should not have been about what game is better. Clearly, sales shows us that it is MtG. This thread's intention was that AGoT is affordable for many aspects of gaming.

1.) Casual gaming. Yes. 40 bucks gives you many decks and multiplayer and cards you can use and tweek a bit here and there relatively easily.

2.) Hardcore gamer: Yes. 300-400 dollars gets you almost any tournament deck with careful purchases AND tons of cards you'll be able to use for other things and decks later. And these will be legal and useful in a competetive and accessible format for forver. MtG lacks that last point.

3.) Must own every card in this game for the present format: At least there are only 15 dollars new every month (or perhaps a touch more).

Slice it any way you want, but lest just try to keep it to the affordability in this thread. Thanks!



#29 Desertspiral

Desertspiral

    Member

  • Members
  • 6 posts

Posted 02 March 2013 - 07:35 PM

HI there

 

@Vermillion

 

Good points.  I guess what i was trying to say above is that.  Building a deck that you hope will do well can be an expensive investment, due to card placement within the expansions. 

 

Where sas, take another CCG that focuses heavily on factions and yet, lacks the competative prizes of MtG - L5R, you can build a pretty decent deck for a lower price margin because of the singles market.  Also i suppose with L5R, as sets rotate, often times they'll rotate cards back in as well.

 

I just know that having to buy 2 (maybe 3) core sets, a house set and 10+ chapter packs to get a good deck going is a pretty steep front loaded cost. 

Cheers

 

 



#30 vermillian

vermillian

    Member

  • Members
  • 882 posts

Posted 03 March 2013 - 05:27 AM

But this 'good deck' can be the exact deck list of a tournament winning deck… AND you also now have the other 100+ cards from those packs to play around with AND your deck is ALWAYS LEGAL.

Hence, the affordability in the long run.

And don't tell me you can buy a 'pretty good' standard deck in MtG for less than you can in the LCGs with the same conditions. Except maybe MtG Eggs deck, which, I've been noticing, requires more and more rares to run better…



#31 Totalgit

Totalgit

    Member

  • Members
  • 81 posts

Posted 03 March 2013 - 06:23 PM

vermillian said:

This thread should not have been about what game is better. Clearly, sales shows us that it is MtG. This thread's intention was that AGoT is affordable for many aspects of gaming.

 

Sales show that Magic is more popular but that doesnt make it better..



#32 mdc273

mdc273

    Member

  • Members
  • 973 posts

Posted 05 March 2013 - 06:28 AM

Desertspiral said:

Hi there,

 

I've found this thread really interesting so far.  I recently started playing AGoT around christmas time last year (2012).  I enjoyed the books and some freinds i was staying with also enjoyed them so i bought a core set and had a few games.  Then i found that I enjoyed the game system, out of the box is seemed pretty fun and I had a sense of connection with the characters and so forth. 

 

SO i bought a couple of the house boxes and built some decks and played htem against each other and we were having a decent time.

Fast forward a couple of months and whilst attending Cancon (in AUS) i went over to the AGoT players and had a couple of games.  After getting destroyed several times over to rapant control mechanics we started talknig about the price and how much it costs to really get into the game and all that.  Given the way the cards are spaced out and everyhting, i was concerned that it would end up being very expensive to play on a competative basis. 

I couldn't beleive it when i was casually told that the buy in was ~1,000 as if it were no matter.  Simply put whether you're rich or poor a thousand dollars is considerable money and not something that you want to be told is the entrance for a given game - even if it is 'relatively cheap to sustain thereafter'. 

I have to say i enjy the game and love the setting, but there are a few things which i find really disconcerting about the whole thing, and after discussing it with the freinds i started the game with we mostly feel the same. 

  • The entry price is really prohibitive, especially the idea that three core sets are needed.
  • The card bloat is phenominal.  The cyclic nature of magic was used earlier in this discussion as a negative, whereas i feel for any game to thrive in a competative setting there needs to be resets and redress to the state of the game on a reasonable time scale.  My favourite game L5R, did this really successfully, and overall it helped the game survive. 
  • Almost every game i've played has ended up is some kind of ridiculous control choke that is extremely unfun, and seems to be endemic of the game as a whole.  The control options are severe and easy to use and they seem (from my limited experience) to outperform rush (generally the counterpoint to control) without trying.  Readily available board resets are also to blame here.
  • The restricted list and banned list are great tools, however, competatively speaking they are band aids when a face lift (reset) is probably more appropriate.
  • Magic might have simple and elegant mechanics that can be confused as boring, its also doesn't (to mk knowledge - since i stopped in 5th), have to diferentiate between 'draw' and 'reveal into hand', as a method of lawyering its way around its own rules.
  • I Like the Barratheons, but apparently they suck at control - ergo they are bottom tier, as with L5r i approached this game with a sense of faction loyalty - so where is the fun in knowing that your faction is on the bottom and likely to stay there outside of jumping through hoops?
  • I went through card DB, and put together a deck i thought would be interesting (if not competative - see above), and then checked all the packs i'd need.  I got pretty sick very fast of seeing that there were ones and two's of the cards i wanted in any given pack.  Sure it's great if you've bene playing from day dog, but the ability to buy singles would be really sweet compared to paying $20 AU for a pack and only needing one or two cards out of it. 

It's almost funny because there is a similar arguement going on regarding table top wargaming at present.  That Warmachine is starting to outsrip warhammer because the entry price (all else equal) is so much more attractive.

Anything that wants to survive needs fuel, and players ar ethe LCG's fuel. 

Anyway, i don't really want to ruffle anyones feathers, and this game is great, that doesn't mean it is without it's issues.  Cost and card bloat are the two major barriers to this game and coincdentally if you fix the latter the first takes care of itself. 

 

I really appreciate this post. This is pretty much what I'm getting at with this game. It's not a lack of quality. The game has quality (though the pre-FAQ card pool was a bit unbalanced). It's this exact issue your discussing I'm trying to highlight. The game has a MASSIVE barrier of entry. It's at least $120 to even begin to have fun at tournaments. A core set deck will get roasted at a tournament right now. I do not know if the same is true for a $15 deck in Magic, but suffice to say it cost a lot less money to try it out as well.

The core premise of this thread is that AGoT is affordable, yet affordability is a subjective term. Ferraris are affordable to Bill Gates. Dinner isn't affordable to a homeless guy. So we need to establish affordability, or at least look at games that could susbtitute for AGoT and look at the barrier of entry for them.

Let's set a premise that AGoT has these qualities:

Customization, Luck, Skill, Socialization

What games have similar qualities?

WoW - Customization (skill builds), Luck (loot drops), Skill, Socialization, Twitch Gaming

The cost to enter WoW is the cost of all of its expansions currently. The core game and the first 2 expansions cost $20. The Cataclysm expansion costs $20. Mists of Pandaria costs $40. That amounts to $80 for WoW. That is currently less than 3 core sets. The only major differences are online vs real-life socialization and that WoW has twitch gaming and AGoT does not. There is also no back-log of packs you would ever have to buy. You just need to pay the subscription fee for future time. Additionally, you get a discount if you buy a bunch of months of game time at once.

Netrunner - Customization, Luck, Skill, Socialization

Currently, most would argue that 2 core sets is all you need. You could even get away with 1 core set and waiting for the faction pack of your preferred faction. The back log of packs you would need to buy is also lower than AGoT. So entry fee amounts to $40 - $120 depending on your preference with a massive edge in cost to catch up (though WoW obviously has none).

Magic - Customization, Luck, Skill, Socialization

The titan of the industry and the one with nearly the lowest entry fee ($15). The backlog fee is difficult to measure in this one. You can generally buy singles of the cards you want (something that really can't be done in AGoT), so it is very variable. The cost to be a top tier player is incredibly greater than AGoT (assuming that they restrict enough cards that you don't have to spend $1000s on chapter packs containing the best cards).

League of Legends - Skill, Socialization, Twitch Gaming, Luck (minor), Customization (medium)

This is the titan of Free-to-Play right now (and yes it is literally free to play, you can't buy power in this game). It's luck is more based on match-making than anything. It's customization is similar to WoW in that you can choose what class and skill tree you want. It's mostly a skill game. It also has internet socialization and twitch gaming. It is not a perfect substitute for AGoT, but it is free. You really can't beat free. Why play AGoT if my friends and I could get together and play this game all day for free?

Starcraft - Skill, Socialization (minor), Twitch Gaming, Customization

The game that pretty much created e-sports. If you want a contest of pure skill mixed with twitch gaming, this is your game. It has internet socialization, though it is very minor. The fact is, this game costs $50 to play and is probably one of the deepest experiences you could have as a competitive gamer. If you had never playred Starcraft or AGoT and were inclined to play both, I think you'd be hard pressed to not give Starcraft a try before AGoT. This doesn't even touch on the fact that Starcraft has an INCREDIBLE single player experience. The online competitive play is FREE!!! NO subscription fee. NO chapter packs. You just need the internet. If you don't have that, you can't even read this.

As you can see here, though the games may be across a couple genres, there is one obvious consistency. AGoT has the highest cost of entry of them all to be able to play at a remotely competitive level. This leads to my next question. What is an acceptable cost of entry for AGoT.

How many core sets should a player be required to buy? I would say zero to one (they should either not want the cards or get triplicate of the good ones). The core set is a relic of this game's reset and no longer serves any real purpose as is. Why are players being forced to buy both an expansion and a core set? How many expansions should a player be required to buy? 1 (their primary faction). How much backlog should a player be required to buy? I would say none. That would be very difficult currently and this is where you see the problem with AGoT. Players need to buy a significant number of older chapter packs to be able to start playing competitively.

I feel that AGoT's barrier of entry should be around $50. I would not object to FFG dropping the cost of their old product and upping the cost of entry to $80 or $100 if it was a worthwhile $100 (they got all the very old, very good cards). Basically, sell a core set at cost that's actually worth buying and then let them buy the expansion of their choice and be able to enter a tournament and have fun. Having fun meaning having a positive play experience and leaving feeling like they learned a lot (and not like they just got annihilated). Then every player has the option of cherry picking what they want (at the additional cost of whatever the packs cost) from the last cycle or 2. Reduce the cost of entry, and the game should see a lot more interest. The subject matter is already intriguing, it's just not worth paying the cost of entry right now.



#33 snaggrriss

snaggrriss

    Member

  • Members
  • 124 posts

Posted 05 March 2013 - 05:06 PM

As the card pool gets larger, and it's been mentioned on CardGameDB, the need to bring proxies into the game. Between Team covenant selling singles and proxies, that would make it easier for new players to jump in competitively. This is something that needs to be addressed soon. I'm sure FFg has already been brainstorming this as well. I like the idea of breaking older cycles down into deluxe espansions. Perhaps house specific would be nice

In my own experience: It has taken me and an other friend 2 years to catch up on the card pool. He plays targs and martells. I play greyjoy and Starks. I looked at the cards we had and looked at competitve decks and i didn't think about playing competitively until recently. That and i live hundreds of miles to the closest tournaments.

Maybe they should totally revamp the  newer cycles into house specific deluxe expansions. We can spend all night discussing Magic. But one thing that none of us can argue with (i don't think) is that Magic knows how to market. It's survived for 20 years. There is something to be learned from it. Maybe thrones can have Release dates. Create Hype. You preorder your preferred house expansion. There's a tournament on the release days. And you play only from the cards you get from the expansions. It doesn't matter how vast your library of cards or how new you are to the game. Give newer players an arena for competitive play. Have some unique alternate art. Us older players still get excited about foils!  Perhaps have a draft of cards of maybe neutral characters and plots and events to add that at a later time can be printed on demand. So you could play just with the cards you get or you're allowed to bring  a certain # of cards from your collection to compliment the expanion you'll recieve. Or you have to play from a specific Chapter cycle?

SO LIKE THIS: Next year this time There's going to be a new Chapter cycle. YOu preorder your preferred house or (houses). And this is one thing that bugs fans and stores. WHEN ARE THE PRODUCTS REALLY GOING TO BE IN THE STORES? Have a SPECIFIC RELEASE DATE FOR ALL STORES. Can't have Fridays so we do it Saturday. There's going to be a tournament . Entrance fee that includes latest chapter cycle some alternate art cards and foils etc. Then there's another box to be used as a draft. everyone loves drafts!  After looking at your house, you will pick in turn, plots, events, attachments, a new agenda, neutral characters( you could have it so that the draft cards are restricted to the tournament only) to supplement your deck. New and veteran players in a an even competitve arena. If you want to talk worlds, start your collection and perhaps you'll be allowed to use some proxies. Or do what guys do when going to Magic tournaments. Borrow Cards! This is a cool community. We wouldn't mind

Anyway it's 1 in the morning here. just brainstorming. Thoughts?



#34 Vaapad

Vaapad

    Member

  • Members
  • 362 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 03:02 AM

I got into this game about a year ago, around while the Tale of Chanpions cycle was finishing up.  I had some significant catch-up to do in terms of cards.  I got in with a friend, so we decided to each pick 3 houses and split the costs.  Here is what the buy-in cost me:

3 core sets @ $20 each (amazon sale) = $60 / 2 = $30

3 deluxe boxes @ 20 each (coolstuffinc) = $60

32 chapter packs (this was over the course of 6-9 months, and we didn't buy all old CPs; rather, we omitted any we didn't need cards from) at $10 ea (coolstuffinc) = $320 / 2 = $180

That's a grand total of $270.  Round it up to $300 to allow for sleeves and deck boxes.  

Thats certainly not $1K, even if you double it.  And because my cards are always legal, so I can keep going back to them to rebuild new decks, I'm happy with my investment.  More than $15 for a preconstructed magic deck?  Yes.  But many more cards and infinitely more versatile = much more fun.


"And for the first time in hundreds of years, the night came alive with the music of dragons."

#35 Kennon

Kennon

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,808 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 05:55 AM

mdc273 said:

. A core set deck will get roasted at a tournament right now. I do not know if the same is true for a $15 deck in Magic, but suffice to say it cost a lot less money to try it out as well.

WoW - Customization (skill builds), Luck (loot drops), Skill, Socialization, Twitch Gaming

The cost to enter WoW is the cost of all of its expansions currently. The core game and the first 2 expansions cost $20. The Cataclysm expansion costs $20. Mists of Pandaria costs $40. That amounts to $80 for WoW. That is currently less than 3 core sets. The only major differences are online vs real-life socialization and that WoW has twitch gaming and AGoT does not. There is also no back-log of packs you would ever have to buy. You just need to pay the subscription fee for future time. Additionally, you get a discount if you buy a bunch of months of game time at once.

 

 

Snipped out a couple salient points.

Lol, yes, that $15 deck would get absolutely roasted in a tournament. Due to the collectible model of MtG it's in WotC's best interest to sell you starter decks that are actively bad and contain mostly average to sub-par cards. They include a good one sometimes in order to entice collectors and competitive players to buy the product and up their sales rather than through thought to having a competitive starter deck.

 

Also, a thought on WoW is that you may be paying for future time, but once you stop paying, you're done. When you purchase AGOT cards, you're also paying for future time that never expires.



#36 Vaapad

Vaapad

    Member

  • Members
  • 362 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 06:36 AM

Vaapad said:

I got into this game about a year ago, around while the Tale of Chanpions cycle was finishing up.  I had some significant catch-up to do in terms of cards.  I got in with a friend, so we decided to each pick 3 houses and split the costs.  Here is what the buy-in cost me:

3 core sets @ $20 each (amazon sale) = $60 / 2 = $30

3 deluxe boxes @ 20 each (coolstuffinc) = $60

32 chapter packs (this was over the course of 6-9 months, and we didn't buy all old CPs; rather, we omitted any we didn't need cards from) at $10 ea (coolstuffinc) = $320 / 2 = $180

That's a grand total of $270.  Round it up to $300 to allow for sleeves and deck boxes.  

Thats certainly not $1K, even if you double it.  And because my cards are always legal, so I can keep going back to them to rebuild new decks, I'm happy with my investment.  More than $15 for a preconstructed magic deck?  Yes.  But many more cards and infinitely more versatile = much more fun.

whoops, bad math.  320 / 2 = 160.  So the grand total should have been closer to $250 than $300


"And for the first time in hundreds of years, the night came alive with the music of dragons."

#37 tibs3688

tibs3688

    Member

  • Members
  • 61 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 08:10 AM

Things like WoW and Starcraft are so fundamentally different from GoT (and card games in general) that there really is no point in comparing them.  Those activities may be cheaper monetarily, but the time investments required to play them at a competitive level must be considered as well.  My friends who play WoW have told me that "the game starts at 80" (or rather 85 now) and complained about both the difficulty and necessity of obtaining top-tier gear.  Starcraft is arguably even worse in this aspect as one must spend many hours and dozens of games, if not hundreds, refining build orders and macro skills before they can really do anything with the game on a competitive level.  And even if those things don't bother you, this cursory analysis doesn't even scratch the surface of all the differences there are.  A lot of people who play card games probably just plain prefer the very different gameplay experience they offer regardless of any money or time considerations.



#38 mdc273

mdc273

    Member

  • Members
  • 973 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 10:32 AM

Bunch of good points.

@snaggrriss - FFG is clearly trying to step it up, but I think they need to be reminded of stuff like this. They're marketing department is decent, but it doesn't compare well. It's quality is high, though. They don't have a ton of marketing, but they tend to make high quality stuff. They don't seem to really nail the "I WANT THAT NOW!!!!!" factor, though. And I was actually considering this on my way to work. I wish that there were foils in the chapter packs. I think I'm going to break that into another post.

@Kennon - LoL for the Magic decks, but they do their job. They get people in cheap and get them to want to play more. I don't think the core set does that right now. Also a good point about WoW not giving you anything permanent, but not all gamers are looking for permanency. Right now the target market for AGoT feels like it's just "people who want to play AGoT". It doesn't feel like it includes "random guy off the street that is looking for a game to play".

@Vaapad - Yea, I knew the $1k was absurd, but will it be if this game continues on for a few more years? You also split the boxes meaning that a single player getting into it might actually have to pay in the $500 - $600 range. Factors change everything, but someone who wants to play every house to some degree will need to pay a pretty hefty price. Also, while Magic players get less cards, more cards are inherently viable due to the color wheel. 2 color decks are common, three color decks are playable, though not as common. I'm not really sure how that factors into the value considerations.

@tibs3688 - I think you're looking at it from a top-tier level. Not every player plays at the top tier. My dad, for instance, enjoys just sitting around fishing in the game when he's bored. WoW has an incredibly deep single player experience as well as an incredibly deep and amazingly supported multi-player experience. The point I'm making is more to my last line @Kennon. AGoT seems to be targetting "people that want to play AGoT". It's not targetting "that guy over there who wants to find something to do with his $50". Obviously you want to have a core of people that want to play AGoT, but you need to have enough draw power to pull in "that guy". If not, it will become more and more difficult to find new players that will stay with the game. The game could very well hit a wall of attrition that sees it die out without "that guy". It started happening in NYC pre-FAQ. There was one dominant deck that kind of turned everyone off. It didn't necessarily make everyone hate thrones, but it was a very NPE experience and pretty unsatisfying. I quit because of it in all honesty. Obviously that's a balance issue, but without new players to play against that weren't playing that absurd deck, I lost interest.



#39 tibs3688

tibs3688

    Member

  • Members
  • 61 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 12:10 PM

@tibs3688 - I think you're looking at it from a top-tier level. Not every player plays at the top tier. My dad, for instance, enjoys just sitting around fishing in the game when he's bored. WoW has an incredibly deep single player experience as well as an incredibly deep and amazingly supported multi-player experience. The point I'm making is more to my last line @Kennon. AGoT seems to be targetting. . .

You're right; not everyone plays at the top level.  Those folks can indeed just buy a core set, a couple house expansions, and whatever random CPs suit their fancy and play their friends casually with random crappy decks.  I recall the main complaint against AGoT's affordability here being how much it costs to play at tournament level.  If playing with broken decks and going to tournaments doesn't suit you there's no reason the game needs to cost much at all.  Me and my friends started off having plenty of fun with just 1 core set; some of them lost interest soon after, others like myself wanted to go further, but we all had the same entry point.

Out of curiosity, what absurd deck are you referring to?



#40 Danigral

Danigral

    Member

  • Members
  • 803 posts

Posted 07 March 2013 - 04:10 AM

~TLDR for mdc's threads: It seems that mdc just wants FFG to hand a pre-constructed deck that he can win worlds with. Unlike most competitive players when confronting a dominant archetype in their meta who try to think of ways to compensate for it or tech against it. mdc took his cards and ran away to Netrunner. But maybe he's back now that power-cards were restricted. But he'll be gone again when new power-cards take over and he doesn't want to figure out ways to deal with them. And back again if they give him foils. burla






© 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