Jump to content



Photo

What is your opinion about the direction the game is taking??


  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

#1 Glendora

Glendora

    Member

  • Members
  • 26 posts

Posted 25 September 2013 - 11:04 AM

I'd like to know what other players around the globe feel about the game.

From my opinion, the game is taking a bad direction since ancient relics came out

 

I will state some reasons why I think this way:

 

Supports are becoming really powerfull (i.e. the new neutral relics from Terror in Venice, flooded vault...) and still Shub is the only faction which can destroy them. Some other factions have one card, but not as good as the shub cards (burrowing beneath, thunder in the east, the cthonian)

Also shub has a lot of cards to gain more than one resource per turn (festival, feed her young...)

 

With yithians the game has added something that can't be countered: triggering abilities from the discard pile. There is no card that can counter that.

 

The Asylum Pack or Deluxe Packs are now preconstructed decks: serpents, yithians, explorers... and also they've given a large pool of powerful cards to some factions which were already too good.

 

These makes competitive game boring, as there is small variety of decks

if you want to destroy supports, you need to include shub, + m. myths and a few more cards that are lmost in all decks

 

What do you think?

 

 

 



#2 Honest

Honest

    Member

  • Members
  • 176 posts

Posted 26 September 2013 - 01:11 AM

On the way FFG are releasing sets (deluxe packs) I quite like it. An decent injection of new cards every 4 months, 2 out of 3 of those cranking up 1 particular faction (Venice was a nice change with something for all)

I really don't like the trigger from the discard pile thing (usually for no cost) either. That is a negative play experience. Having more purple dudes is fine, that mechanic sucks. Take that out that thing, I think the game is fine

In our local meta (Sydney) we have a fairly mixed representations of decks-the recent restrictions helped guarantee that. I would argue that unless you're playing a Nationals or higher level event, the mix of decks would be as diverse as any other CCG/LCG on the market

I am happy to concede that different metas have different player bases etc and some areas may feel exactly as you have written above, I just cannot see that from my experience

However you play, I hope you keep on enjoying the game Brother!

Honest

#3 jhaelen

jhaelen

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,025 posts

Posted 26 September 2013 - 01:33 AM

I'd like to know what other players around the globe feel about the game.

From my opinion, the game is taking a bad direction since ancient relics came out

 

I will state some reasons why I think this way:

 

Supports are becoming really powerfull (i.e. the new neutral relics from Terror in Venice, flooded vault...) and still Shub is the only faction which can destroy them. Some other factions have one card, but not as good as the shub cards (burrowing beneath, thunder in the east, the cthonian)

Also shub has a lot of cards to gain more than one resource per turn (festival, feed her young...)

 

With yithians the game has added something that can't be countered: triggering abilities from the discard pile. There is no card that can counter that.

 

The Asylum Pack or Deluxe Packs are now preconstructed decks: serpents, yithians, explorers... and also they've given a large pool of powerful cards to some factions which were already too good.

 

These makes competitive game boring, as there is small variety of decks

if you want to destroy supports, you need to include shub, + m. myths and a few more cards that are lmost in all decks

 

What do you think?

I don't mind powerful support cards and I feel there's sufficient ways to deal with them for every faction and they don't always involve destroying the support cards. they can also be stolen, their effects copied, or most recently blanked.

 

The latest FAQ made short work of many ways that allowed Shub to gain additional resources very fast. So, that's another threat that is mostly under control again.

 

The only cards that I have a big problem with right now are the ones that can be triggered from the discard pile. A Yithian deck is a horror to behold - and not in a good way. It's decidedly _not_ fun to play against one. And there isn't a lot you can do against them. In any case it requires a dedicated deck which isn't much use against anything else.

I'm definitely hoping for another FAQ update before November to defuse this situation.

 

Regarding what you refer to as 'pre-constructed' decks, I think they are a boon for new players. None them are actually competitive on their own except for the Yithian deck. Just like a Mi-Go deck they're simply an easy way to create a deck that doesn't suck.

 

So, I'm actually by-and-large fine with the direction the game is taking - they 'just' have to ban, restrict or errata all cards that can be triggered from the discard. Fixing them by adding counter-cards will be tricky, and I don't think FFG is prepared to change the rules to make it easier to deal with them.



#4 dboeren

dboeren

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,146 posts

Posted 27 September 2013 - 09:17 AM

The faction boxes are designed in part to be a starting point for new players.  With so many asylum packs out over all these years, people feel overwhelmed on where to start.  It's great that FFG is giving them this new option - buy a Core plus whatever faction box you like and you will be able to build a decent deck just with that and the cost is reasonable.

 

Supports can be dealt with in various ways, and if it's an attachment you can add insanity and bouncing as well.  You don't "have" to pick Shub unless you want to.  There's also nothing wrong with letting your opponent keep a support and just countering it by having your own strong cards.

 

I believe that FFG is aware of some issues with the Yithians and is working on that, just as the most recent FAQ reigned in a lot of other powerful effects that were too dominant.  Also, they just introduced the "remove from play" mechanic which I think will evolve into a way to combat from-discard abilities over time as well.

 

I don't think huge action will be necessary on the Yithians, and let me explain my reasoning here...  You need to put in a lot of Yithians to get a good deck out of from-discard stuff.  Just a few won't cut it.  So we're not so much talking about all the individual cards being a problem, it's more just the deck as a whole.  If they can errata or otherwise reign in probably just a few of the cards then the deck as a whole will be at an appropriate level and as long as they don't continue printing Yithians there won't be any way to make it much stronger - just weaker if you remove some of them.  Remember, a discard deck that only makes you discard a few cards here and there isn't going to fly.  Yithians are a neat theme, but I don't see them being an ongoing component of the faction.

 

 

But yeah, I think the overall direction right now is pretty good.  They're taking steps to help new players join the game (something we've sorely needed), they seem to be taking steps to slow things down and rein in mechanics that get too powerful like the Shub resource acceleration and things like Museum Curator->take control.  We're seeing a return of cool mechanics like Night/Day and immunity to support destruction on the cards so you can actually build a deck around it without it being so fragile.  There are Conspiracies worth using now, with new types of effects on them too.  I believe that the faction boxes will help to even out faction power levels in the long run too and make less often seen factions more viable.  How often did Miskatonic make it into the top positions before their box came out?  Can't wait to see the new Syndicate and for Silver Twilight to be able to stand on its own finally.


Edited by dboeren, 27 September 2013 - 09:23 AM.


#5 jhaelen

jhaelen

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,025 posts

Posted 30 September 2013 - 01:14 AM

But it's not just the Yithians. It's all cards with abilities triggering from the discard. It's 'The Festival' and it's 'Lost Oracle', too. Both cards are problematic in their own way and don't require a specific deck. We'd need a card like 'Snow Graves', that can be put into any deck that counters cards triggerable from the discard.

Alternatively, perhaps the rules have to be adjusted to limit the number of card effects that can be triggered from the discard pile.

I don't think huge action will be necessary on the Yithians, and let me explain my reasoning here...  You need to put in a lot of Yithians to get a good deck out of from-discard stuff.  Just a few won't cut it.  So we're not so much talking about all the individual cards being a problem


#6 Hybrid

Hybrid

    Member

  • Members
  • 264 posts

Posted 02 October 2013 - 12:08 PM

All things considered, I am enjoying the direction 'the game' is taking and most of our local players would agree. With that being said I should perhaps clarify what I mean when I say 'the game'. The Call of Cthulhu LCG is played and enjoyed locally by gamers looking for a variety of experiences. First there are those looking for the competitive scene, mixing cards with the only purpose of beating down their opponents. Then there are the casual players who are mostly focused on theme and flavor or are playing for purely social reasons. Our most competitive players have voiced some concerns about balance but at the same time are racing to abuse cards finding their own combos to win at nearly all costs, barring cheating or unsportsmanlike behavior. Those individuals looking for a more thematic play experience are really enjoying the current deluxe box expansions with their rich flavor and support for thematic mechanics. The casual players are not however without their criticisms, often asking "Why no flavor text?" or "Who is Marama Riwhi or Eryn Cochryn and why no Herbert West or Crawford Tillinghast?!" 

 

 

It seems to me that if you're going to design 'in discard' abilities you also provide an answer within the same set that counter it somewhat? Not looking for 'silver bullets' per se but I was shocked to see no answer to these abilities in Terror In Venice! We'll see what Denizens of the Underworld brings. I would be concerned about broad sweeping changes to curtail the 'in discard' effects. A minor tweak here and there perhaps but new cards that make it more risky to play a 'Yithian' deck would be preferred. I would agree that to get these cards designed and in players' hands will however take some time so in the meantime you restrict the vital cards for this deck type. I just dislike seeing cards get nerfed into oblivion! There are already too many cards I spend good money on that just sit in the box or binder to never be played! 

 

 

As for Supports being made too powerful with very few answers, unless you have the resources of Wizards you're not gonna get a perfect balance between all factions particularly when you're at the same time attempting to preserve faction identities. Over the last couple years most factions have gained ways of dealing with support cards, some more effective than others. LCGs/CCGs over time go through phases and I've already seen signs that the period of dominant linchpin supports will fall back in line. What will take their place, Recursion, cancellation, 'in discard' effects? 


Edited by Hybrid, 02 October 2013 - 02:18 PM.


#7 ValeS

ValeS

    Member

  • Members
  • 16 posts

Posted 12 December 2013 - 01:18 PM

 

But it's not just the Yithians. It's all cards with abilities triggering from the discard. It's 'The Festival' and it's 'Lost Oracle', too. Both cards are problematic in their own way and don't require a specific deck. We'd need a card like 'Snow Graves', that can be put into any deck that counters cards triggerable from the discard.

Alternatively, perhaps the rules have to be adjusted to limit the number of card effects that can be triggered from the discard pile.

 

What I think this game needs is:

 

1) A 12-15 card sideboard

2) Tourney game rounds that have 2x 30min matches matches (60mins total and you can used the sideboard this way).

 

That would make the cards easier to balance instead of using a barrage of errata and FAQs, and deckbuilding would become even more interesting (as you can create more "resilient to hard counters" decks).



#8 Yipe

Yipe

    Member

  • Members
  • 680 posts

Posted 12 December 2013 - 03:44 PM

Just going off personal experience, I think it would be difficult to have all players complete their matches in 30 minutes.  I'm not saying it can't be done.  I've definitely lost games in under 10 minutes, but that's not the norm.  With only 30 minutes, it means everyone would likely be playing a rush-style deck so they could complete their games in time, and it would not be a beginner friendly format.

 

It would also make tournaments longer than they already are, which is a factor I always consider when planning such events.  Right now you play a single round at 50 minutes.  Even though you're only adding 10 minutes with x2 30 minutes rounds, you need to factor in the time for a second set of shuffling, mulligan, initial resourcing, etc... these things don't happen on the clock, so to speak, and can add another 10 minutes (or more if you're including a sideboard).  Now you're looking at an additional 20+ minutes which adds up over the course of 4-5 Swiss rounds.

 

Finally, what happens when 2 players split their wins?  Do you go to a tiebreak round just for those players, thus holding up the pairings for everyone else?

 

While it's not perfect, I think the single 50-minute match using the Swiss system is the best option I've seen.



#9 ValeS

ValeS

    Member

  • Members
  • 16 posts

Posted 12 December 2013 - 04:53 PM

Well Netrunner has 65 minutes rounds at the moment (and I believe it was 80 minutes during our last regional). A 60min round is not unusual in a lot of cards games I have played. Plus (and this is a big one) the usual turnout in my area - and most areas from what I read around - is usually very low.

 

 

If players split their wins then total stories won should come in play (and after that even total success tokens placed should count). If the time limit is reached without the second game having finished total stories could be the deciding factor. Or even a point system like the one in Netrunner (essentially changing what we now have altogether and potentially easing the placement calculations if an event has a very big attendance). Plus a game could be a draw (this is covered in the currect CoC tournament rules) and it really has to be an overall tie for placement in the top 8 or top 4 that would affect a tournament schedule (I don't think it would be very likely if total number of stories and total number of tokens is taken into account!!!!).

 

What I have seen during the time I followed and played CoC is that most decks are kind of "one trick ponies". They are designed to have a winning mechanic or archetype (which is the normal process while deckbuilding) but frequently there are times when a deck has no answers for an opponent card or deck archetype.

 

On top of that when a strong combo is discovered, the devs try to tone it down by restricting (or banning) the cards involved and/or issuing an errata for the wording (Thing in the Ground comes in mind - OMG they really destroyed that card!!!!!).

 

Having a sideboard and a second game would allow for "answers" to be included when someone is designing his/her deck and I believe it would boost the competitiveness of the game overall.


Edited by ValeS, 12 December 2013 - 04:54 PM.


#10 jhaelen

jhaelen

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,025 posts

Posted 13 December 2013 - 02:06 AM

Having a sideboard might be interesting, but reducing the time for a match to 30 minutes is not something I'd like to see.

I'm a slow player, so even with the 50 minutes, I tend to have at least one game per tournament that could not be finished. And unfortunately, the #stories won and the #success tokens isn't always indicative of the player who would have been most likely to win the match.

 

Interestingly, in the beginning, CoC tournaments actually used best of three matches. But this was before the mulligan rule was introduced and even then, there was no sideboard.



#11 ValeS

ValeS

    Member

  • Members
  • 16 posts

Posted 14 December 2013 - 08:04 AM

Even best of three matches would be interesting to see (or at least try!) but I don't think that would solve the issue of interesting cards getting restricted or banned (that I firmly believe would be fine if we had a sideboard).

 

I really would like everyone's opinion on this, I firmly believe there is room for improvement in the game (that would hopefully attract more players).



#12 Hybrid

Hybrid

    Member

  • Members
  • 264 posts

Posted 14 December 2013 - 09:29 AM

Drop the mulligan and do best of 3. I don't hate the idea of a sideboard but I feel the idea of 2X 30min matches is a less eloquent solution than 3X total 1hr matches - mulligan.



#13 Honest

Honest

    Member

  • Members
  • 176 posts

Posted 16 December 2013 - 04:11 AM

On the round time thing, I think its fine as is

 

1 exception I would consider making would be untimed, best of 3 final match for Regionals and up.

 

regular play I think best of 1 is fine

 

Honest



#14 Elochim

Elochim

    Member

  • Members
  • 29 posts

Posted 19 December 2013 - 03:27 AM

Time is a big thing in games like Netrunner since you have to play two games in a short amount of time and it can often fail to produce clear winners (lots of people going 1-1 vs each other). CoC gives you a clear winner and instead of playing the same opponent three times you get to play against more people.

 

As for sideboards CoC has a great resource system that allows you to play a few counter cards in your deck and just resource them against people that don't play supports for example. Introducing a side board takes that away completely and forces more games to be played before deciding a winner, which is a symptom of bad design in Magic, not depth of game play.

 

There is one more thing to consider when discussing number of games and times, and that is that playing more games per round makes rush archetypes (that rule the field as it is already) even more dominating, since a fast deck can lose a game due to bad luck and have time to come back and win two quick games while a slow, controlling deck often will run out of time if you have to play three games.

 

The current tournament rules are my absolute favorite in any card game I play (I am not a good player by a long shot in any game though) since you play one deciding game against each opponent, making surprise decks and reading your opponent viable strategies. You get to play more opponents during a tournament and there is no artificial elements of meta-gaming during the tournament at all, just deck vs deck, pure and simple. If you know all the cards you can read at least 2/3 of an opponents deck from the initial resourcing and with the brilliant resource systems you should be able to have at least some counters against most decks (Yithians not so much), so there really is no need to add lots of fixes to a game that actually works as intended without them.

 

Just my two cents.


  • jasonconlon likes this

#15 ValeS

ValeS

    Member

  • Members
  • 16 posts

Posted 19 December 2013 - 10:12 AM

Sorry double post (see below)...


Edited by ValeS, 19 December 2013 - 10:13 AM.


#16 ValeS

ValeS

    Member

  • Members
  • 16 posts

Posted 19 December 2013 - 10:13 AM

... with the brilliant resource systems you should be able to have at least some counters against most decks (Yithians not so much), so there really is no need to add lots of fixes to a game that actually works as intended without them.

 

Just my two cents.

 

The problem I was trying to address is exactly that. There are decks that can make an opponents deck irrelevant (plus a single game allows for much easier drawing problems). Without a mechanism in tournament play allowing for adjustment of your deck so that you are able to vary your responses this is a problem.

 

Plus if there was no need for fixes we would have the barrage of errata and card restrictions/bans we had in the last 2 FAQs!!!


Edited by ValeS, 19 December 2013 - 10:14 AM.


#17 Yipe

Yipe

    Member

  • Members
  • 680 posts

Posted 19 December 2013 - 02:10 PM

Elochim summed up how I feel about the current tournament rules nicely.

 

I actually find building decks that not only incorporate a particular offense, but include defenses to perceived threats one of the more interesting challenges to this game.  For this reason I would prefer not to have a sideboard.

 

When I make my tournament decks, part of the strategy is figuring out how to survive 5 rounds of play on 50 cards.  Is it by employing a surprise strategy, or trying to cover all the bases?  Striking that balance isn't easy, but it's part of the creative process.  Personally, I feel it makes for sloppy deck design if you can simply plug in a few cards after seeing what your opponent has put together.  If I get surprised by a particularly clever strategy that finds a hole in my deck, then my opponent has earned my respect and deserved to win.

 

With regards to playing multiple matches, I can only go by my own experience here.  Based on my group's preferences they would much rather play 1 match against as many different opponents as possible as opposed to the best 2 out of 3 against the same person.  I realize it's just one sample, but I believe Portland currently has the largest CoC community in the country, and I've now run 5 good-sized tournaments over the last year and a half, so it I think it carries some weight.


  • jasonconlon likes this




© 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