Jump to content



Photo

to other pure solo players/ FFG designers...PLEASE read this


  • Please log in to reply
71 replies to this topic

#1 richsabre

richsabre

    Moby the Goldfish

  • Members
  • 4,610 posts

Posted 21 March 2012 - 10:20 AM

i have contacted ffg regarding the fact that the first two packs now have yielded 3 useless cards for solo play

renewed friendship- which is a shame as the art is amazing

song of earendil

rohan ally (ok not useless but pretty close, obviously wont find use in a solo deck)

and possibly the new dunedain ranger card- i didnt see any reason for its cost but the fact it has both ranged and sentinel traits??

all useless- these can all go along with wandering took, the sentinel attatchements, Brand, gildors council and several others i cant think of

with only 9 cards in a new pack it is really irritating when i can barely afford the new cards that i get yet more drinks coasters to look at

i appreciate this is 1-2 player game but if you're gonna hold to that why release these useless cards for the 1 player

-i do not want to play with 2 decks

i was really looking forward to the song attatchement till i read it- this is especially annoying as something as 'open ended' as a song atttchement can be pretty much made to do whatever the designers want, and its a missed opportunity in my books

can we please in future either have 1. a couple of pure solo cards (not sure how theyd work- im sure there could be some)  or 2. cards that are playable by all players

before you start telling me to chill and be more reasonable, i dont have alot of money (not your problem i know) but i have spent god knows how long saving for a pack and it irritates me that 2/9 of it are useless

i dont mind pure multi-player cards as long as ffg dont forget some people dont want to play 2 player

thanks

PS. i will post their reply here


My Deviantart profile. Infrared Art http://richsabre.deviantart.com/

My Portfolio http://richardbyers.portfoliobox.me/

 


#2 Robert McMutton

Robert McMutton

    Member

  • Members
  • 141 posts

Posted 21 March 2012 - 10:27 AM

Amen to that. I'm with you. Also a solo player, and it's a bit annoying. I think there should not be so difficult to have al alternative text in the card, saying that in case of 1 player, the effect is xxxx for example.



#3 richsabre

richsabre

    Moby the Goldfish

  • Members
  • 4,610 posts

Posted 21 March 2012 - 10:28 AM

agreed robert...................im a really patient man, but this is gettting me worked up....argh need a drink...


My Deviantart profile. Infrared Art http://richsabre.deviantart.com/

My Portfolio http://richardbyers.portfoliobox.me/

 


#4 monkeyrama

monkeyrama

    Member

  • Members
  • 120 posts

Posted 21 March 2012 - 10:40 AM

Can't deny I'm rather bummed out to see the new cards not being that useful solo. It seems they're starting to get the hang of cards balancing for different player numbers in the encounter decks, so it would be very nice to see that work also for the player decks.



#5 richsabre

richsabre

    Moby the Goldfish

  • Members
  • 4,610 posts

Posted 21 March 2012 - 10:42 AM

i wonder if they have done some sort of research and found out that very little numbers play solo? thats the vibe i get if im being honest- sorta feel left out

-not that im ever gonna stop giving them my money- damn you ffg for making such a great game


My Deviantart profile. Infrared Art http://richsabre.deviantart.com/

My Portfolio http://richardbyers.portfoliobox.me/

 


#6 richsabre

richsabre

    Moby the Goldfish

  • Members
  • 4,610 posts

Posted 21 March 2012 - 12:11 PM

on a side note how long does it generally take ffg to respond?


My Deviantart profile. Infrared Art http://richsabre.deviantart.com/

My Portfolio http://richardbyers.portfoliobox.me/

 


#7 dcdennis

dcdennis

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,376 posts

Posted 21 March 2012 - 02:21 PM

While I agree with you somewhat, if you need to "save up" to buy a $12 pack of cards you might have bigger problems to worry about than this.



#8 richsabre

richsabre

    Moby the Goldfish

  • Members
  • 4,610 posts

Posted 21 March 2012 - 02:40 PM

dcdennis said:

 

While I agree with you somewhat, if you need to "save up" to buy a $12 pack of cards you might have bigger problems to worry about than this.

 

 

yes i do, though i hardly see that as forum appropriate and none of your business

----ive had to come back to this....seriously man?? what the hell goes through your mind when you post something like that? would you like to know my bank balance? my health status? anything else?


My Deviantart profile. Infrared Art http://richsabre.deviantart.com/

My Portfolio http://richardbyers.portfoliobox.me/

 


#9 dcdennis

dcdennis

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,376 posts

Posted 21 March 2012 - 02:45 PM

you lobbed that softball buddy, can't expect someone not to hit it out of the park.



#10 richsabre

richsabre

    Moby the Goldfish

  • Members
  • 4,610 posts

Posted 21 March 2012 - 02:46 PM

the reason i said it was that it was core to people understanding why im making a fuss over 2 cards. it was not an invite to troll


My Deviantart profile. Infrared Art http://richsabre.deviantart.com/

My Portfolio http://richardbyers.portfoliobox.me/

 


#11 Mattr0polis

Mattr0polis

    Member

  • Members
  • 792 posts

Posted 21 March 2012 - 02:57 PM

I like ya, richsabre, but I have to respectfully disagree with you on this. 

With this being the first real cooperative customizable card game, they would really be missing out by not taking full advantage of new concepts that can exist in this system. What you are asking is for every card to only effect the controlling player, basically just be like every card in every other card game ever made, of which there really is only so much they can do, and which we've all seen numerous times. Cards that can synergize with teammates can do all kinds of new, refreshing tricks or even just let us build decks in different ways that even heavy card gamers, like myself, haven't been able to do before.

I don't think there is a lack of solo players like you mentioned, but I would say there has to be at least as many groups, like mine, that play mainly two or more players. I don't think it's too much to put up with for some cards to be better with multiplayer.

That being said, they've shown a willingness to make some of those cards have some purpose to solo players, like the 'ranged' thing. Maybe they could do more of that in the future.

And I also wouldn't be opposed to a few cards that were only for solo play, or worded in a way that it was mainly useful for solo play but also possible to use multiplayer, if even only barely. Like of the top of my head, some really powerful events with wording like "If there is 3 or less Heroes in play, do X". That would be good for solo and would be a big help for the people saying solo is a lot tougher and also enticing for some 2-player games to try the less Heroes builds they keep trying to push on us, and could even be possible if just a bunch of heroes/players died. Something like that. Mainly, we just have to give them some time to figure out what all is possible in this system, both multiplayer and solo.

I mean, I do see where you're coming from, but a request for no more of these fun, unique card concepts is maybe a bit much.



#12 Woz

Woz

    Member

  • Members
  • 175 posts

Posted 21 March 2012 - 03:24 PM

Rich,

I play about 75% solo and always with a single deck so I can relate.  I will admit grinding my teeth a little with the Dundeain buffs for sentinel and ranged back in SoM when I was desperately looking for quality purple allies not named Faramir!  However, my advice to you is to take a few deep breaths and roll with the punches here.  It's a fun game solo, and that's what counts!  Also, they've built in relevance for ranged in solo - encounter cards that can only be dealt with through ranged and player cards that key off of it.  I'm hoping that we'll get a player card that readies a sentinel after defending or heals them or buffs their D (whatever) that makes the trait relevant in solo.  I know that does not help with some of the allies, events and things like Bard's ability, but there's always cards that won't see the light of day for some players.

I think you're British...where's the legendary Stiff upper lip? (jesting, don't be offended!)

 



#13 booored

booored

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,584 posts

Posted 21 March 2012 - 03:40 PM

The game is designed for co-op, and can be played solo. This is the way of things and how it has been form the start.

There are so many things in this game that point to that above just the individual cards.. scaling balance.. everything.. this is a 2 player game. This is the game your buying... get used to it. I hope they nvr listen to this thread and sacrifice the games ability to be a co-op game for solo players. I think that if anything they should add MORE co-op only cards, as it is only now that co-op decks are starting to get the tools to be truly interdependent, as until recently they were basically just solo decks that people played on either side of the table. This has made co-op measurably more fun. This is a LCG, if you do not like the player card pool, do not buy the pack, the entire point of a LCG is that you can pick and choose the packs you want, no one is forcing you to buy every single pack that is released.

 


"People should be less concerned about whether they are being insulted and more concerned if it is the truth"

#14 richsabre

richsabre

    Moby the Goldfish

  • Members
  • 4,610 posts

Posted 21 March 2012 - 03:50 PM

Woz said:

I think you're British...where's the legendary Stiff upper lip? (jesting, don't be offended!)

 

you forget our ability to complain though :P

to those who say it is a co-operative game is say it is a solo game- there is nowhere on the box that says '2 player with the chance to solo' and if indeed as booored says- many things point to it being primarily a co-op then it is a false advertisement to not state this before you commit, may sound a bit of an over reaction but its what i believe

it says 1-2 players, therefore it should be a 50/50 thing

someone proposed multiple wordings that way everyone wins, i like the idea of that

for those who are worried im out there to try and change the way ffg make their game im not- what...you think theyd do it even if i tried? this isnt the catagories petition

anyways my point is a point in iteself - a customer's opinion


My Deviantart profile. Infrared Art http://richsabre.deviantart.com/

My Portfolio http://richardbyers.portfoliobox.me/

 


#15 Keggy

Keggy

    Member

  • Members
  • 311 posts

Posted 21 March 2012 - 04:01 PM

I'm actually gonna have to agree with booored a bit.  The game plays 1-4 people, but it's obvious that 2+ players is where the game's focus is at.  It seems like they designed a cooperative game and realized it could be played solo, so they slapped it on the box.  I expect there will occasionally be some solo-oriented cards, but I wouldn't get my hopes up; while a solo-oriented card would be great for you, it is a dead card for people who play in two, three, and four player games.  Secrecy might turn out to be decent for solo decks, but I don't know if I would be comfortable playing a game where there are only 2 heroes on the table.



#16 Bohemond

Bohemond

    Member

  • Members
  • 566 posts

Posted 21 March 2012 - 04:13 PM

We already have cards and mechanics that work far better for solo play than for cooperative play, scrying being chief among them.  So, solo play is getting attention.

Their needs to be cards that focus on cooperative play for that area of the game to flourish, as boored explained.  It would be difficult to design interesting mechanics that worked exclusively for single player, and didn't feel like simply an attempt to make solo players feel better about themselves.  The multiplayer cards add exciting elements to the game and a new range of interactions.  Its hard to see how a solo-only card would do the same thing.



#17 booored

booored

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,584 posts

Posted 21 March 2012 - 04:27 PM

Bohemond said:

We already have cards and mechanics that work far better for solo play than for cooperative play, scrying being chief among them.  So, solo play is getting attention.

this is a good point as well.


"People should be less concerned about whether they are being insulted and more concerned if it is the truth"

#18 Trantor

Trantor

    Member

  • Members
  • 48 posts

Posted 21 March 2012 - 07:17 PM

Bohemond said:

We already have cards and mechanics that work far better for solo play than for cooperative play, scrying being chief among them.  So, solo play is getting attention.

This. There will always be cards that are way better in solo games than in coop, and there will always be cards that work better in coop games. I don't see a lot of difference between a card that doesn't work in solo games and a card that's so bad you never want to play it anyway.

So no, I don't mind this one bit, as long as there is something for everybody in a new pack - and I'm certain that will never change.

Also, I'm way more interested in the new scenarios than in the new player cards when buying a pack.



#19 Robert McMutton

Robert McMutton

    Member

  • Members
  • 141 posts

Posted 21 March 2012 - 07:32 PM

I think rich is saying (and I agree) something like the following: It's completely understable and desirable that FFg design cards that exploits interactions between players and enhance the co-op aspect of the game (i'm mostly a solo player, and I think it's amazing that the game is cooperative). But, I think that it is possible to compatibilize this with some alternative use for the same card in the case of solo playing.

And I offer an example:

The new Rider of the Mark, is an ally with a mechanic designed for co-op, which playing solo makes him barely useful. Ok, what I say is that they could add (add, not replace) to his text something like: Action: If there is only one player in the game, spend 1 Spirit resource to discard a shadow card dealt to an enemy you are engaged with (limit once per round). So, you have a card designed for co-op interaction AND useful for solo play. Usually it could be possible to find both uses for a card, and not be exclusive. Of course the mechanics will make the card better for one or the other, but at least, it could be used by everyone.

 

Greetings.



#20 jhaelen

jhaelen

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,025 posts

Posted 21 March 2012 - 09:45 PM

Robert McMutton said:

But, I think that it is possible to compatibilize this with some alternative use for the same card in the case of solo playing.

[...]

Ok, what I say is that they could add (add, not replace) to his text something like: Action: If there is only one player in the game, spend 1 Spirit resource to discard a shadow card dealt to an enemy you are engaged with (limit once per round).

I don't think 'compatibilize' is a word

I think adding single-player specific rules to cards would be a very bad idea. If anything we need _less_ text on those cards, not more. _I have trouble reading some of the cards as it is. Putting even more text on the cards will reduce the font to become completely unreadable.

As booored correctly pointed out this is a cooperative game that also can be played solo. So it makes sense to release lots of cards that have a cooperative aspect. I'd actually like to see _more_ of them.

Solo players are still free to use two decks at the same time (which is what I do when I'm playing solo). There's no need to add anything to the game that specifically caters to solo players, particularly since I'm quite sure they're the (somewhat vocal) minority.






© 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