Jump to content



Photo

Please FFG change the deck building mechanic…your our only hope..


  • Please log in to reply
96 replies to this topic

#1 Jivewookiee

Jivewookiee

    Member

  • Members
  • 46 posts

Posted 20 August 2012 - 07:20 PM

 Picking ten cards that decide the 60 cards in your deck is a mistake. Deck building and tweaking a deck is half the fun of LCG's/CCG's. Think of all the options for decks that we cannot do because of the Objective cards. Think of the tournament scene, it is far more likely that each faction will be a mirror image of the said faction at each tournament. An optimal build will be discovered and an optimal build is a lot easier when picking 10 cards over 60.

So far I love what I have seen of the game, but nerfing deck building is ludicrous and will chase away a lot of hard core gamers because it seems to run on "kid mode"

If you agree with this sentiment please post your support for the change of Deck Building rules.

I hope you are listening FFG.

 

PS. Love that there are Factions



#2 spirit

spirit

    Member

  • Members
  • 417 posts

Posted 20 August 2012 - 08:46 PM

I have to say I agree. I have major concerns about the deck building side of things. Maybe if the objectives came with several sets of cards for you to pick from it could work but as it stands it just seems too… basic. 



#3 ianhancock1985

ianhancock1985

    Member

  • Members
  • 23 posts

Posted 20 August 2012 - 09:08 PM

 Just to be difficult, I'd have to say that I disagree.

As someone who doesn't want to play competitively and mostly just with friends, wife etc I would much prefer a quick chuck together deck construction game than a build your deck from a billion cards type of game. Also, this means that they don't have to balance cards- they only have to balance the "sets" which I think is much easier.

As far as chasing away hard core gamers goes, well, those folks are always going to return to AGOT or MTG anyways… Hell, I do.

To be honest, there are already plenty of LCG's/CCG's that have the build your own deck thing going for it, kudos for FFG for coming up with something that a) is easier for people b) more forgiving for new people c) more forgiving for people who haven't bought 3 of everything and d) just plain different

This is going to turn into another one of those co-op vs PVP type arguments I know, but it's a moot point. For every thread like this there will be one saying it's great and I doubt they will change it again

 



#4 Jivewookiee

Jivewookiee

    Member

  • Members
  • 46 posts

Posted 20 August 2012 - 09:56 PM

ianhancock1985 said:

 Just to be difficult, I'd have to say that I disagree.

As someone who doesn't want to play competitively and mostly just with friends, wife etc I would much prefer a quick chuck together deck construction game than a build your deck from a billion cards type of game. Also, this means that they don't have to balance cards- they only have to balance the "sets" which I think is much easier.

As far as chasing away hard core gamers goes, well, those folks are always going to return to AGOT or MTG anyways… Hell, I do.

To be honest, there are already plenty of LCG's/CCG's that have the build your own deck thing going for it, kudos for FFG for coming up with something that a) is easier for people b) more forgiving for new people c) more forgiving for people who haven't bought 3 of everything and d) just plain different

This is going to turn into another one of those co-op vs PVP type arguments I know, but it's a moot point. For every thread like this there will be one saying it's great and I doubt they will change it again

 

I doubt I will attend tournaments either, but I still want to have competitive decks to play with my friends. To address your points individually.

A) Yeah its easier, because its reducing the concept to absolute bare basics. This however does not make it better

 

B) Forgiving for new people is a good thing, but this is addressed in the 4 precons. After a lot of game play those new to the game may wish to cross over into making their own decks.

 

C) If you are a person who gets 3+ of everything chances are your play group is as well, And the game should not be changed on the account of some people buying less than others.  Besides the whole LCG model makes it VERY easy to get 3 of everything.

D) Just plain different is in no way a qualifier by itself. Having the art for Darth Vader with him in a pink suit with a bow tie is different.

 

So it is easier and more forgiving than say magic. but 99% of magic players make their own decks, and they had to at some point learn the basics of doing so.

FFG think about the long term ramifications of using this "slot system". It seems everyone is looking at the game and thinking 'oh that may be fun to play once in a while" by tailoring it to the casual gamer you alienate the hard core who will buy everything you publish for the game and drive it forward in tournaments. the post above says the hardcore players will return to AGOT or Magic. Why? make SW deserve hardcore players.



#5 ianhancock1985

ianhancock1985

    Member

  • Members
  • 23 posts

Posted 20 August 2012 - 11:17 PM

Jivewookiee said:

 

tailoring it to the casual gamer you alienate the hard core who will buy everything you publish for the game 

 

 

The opposite is also true- tailer to the hardcore and the casual won't even touch the product. So they find something in the middle. As I mentioned previously, keep in mind that LOTR:LCG is in no way tailored to the competitive gamer, yet that has been and continues to be successful. I'm just saying that not everyone wants that sort of game.

My 2 cents is this- I would really like to get together with a bunch of friends (being married, this includes half women, not necesserily gamers but SW nerds for sure) and be able to say, "Pick 10 cards from this and lets go" as opposed to having to walk them through/build their deck for them. In my opinion there is space for this sort of thing in the market as it stands, there are plenty of hardcore deck building games around (esp by FFG), don't think that they should make this one just because you might like the IP.

I understand your point of view (being one of those gamers in my time), but I am really looking forward to seeing what they can do with it. And hey man, look on the bright side- you are clearly much happier that it is PVP rather than the initial Co-op :)

 

PS Oh and in regards to your response to A- given that no one has had the opportunity to build decks yet, since the demo's were precons, making a broad generalisation like that may be a bit premature no?



#6 dbmeboy

dbmeboy

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,328 posts

Posted 21 August 2012 - 12:43 AM

I'm somewhat skeptical of the deck building, but I'll at least give it a chance.  It would be a rule they could change later without much trouble.  They could even keep some hybrid of it where you still had to build in 5 card blocks but not have those tied to an objective.  I think I would prefer full deck building control though, because I love building decks (so says my bag of 40-odd MtG decks…).

One interesting note on the deck building, I think it's intended to be a balance mechanism.  One of the designers at GenCon explained it by saying that if you wanted one really powerful card you'd have to take the 4 other cards in the set which might not be as powerful.  I'm not sure how I feel about any kind of balance mechanism in a competitive card game.  It shifts emphasis to play skill and luck and away from deck building, which I feel should be as important as play skill.

Another reason they gave for their deck building rules: it will force you to use the "less powerful" cards that otherwise nobody would ever play with.



#7 Jivewookiee

Jivewookiee

    Member

  • Members
  • 46 posts

Posted 21 August 2012 - 12:58 AM

 You make some good points Ian, but I have to refute some of them.

If your having non gamer starwars fans over to play the game, then Im pretty sure they dont care that much if they play a pre con or make their own deck by randomly selecting 10 objectives. The casual player IS catered for IMO. Its a simple system and the cards build of that system, like any good CCG. Magic has simple rules, but is a very deep game, I think SW can be the same. When I started playing CCG's (MTG Urza's Block) I started off with precons. then bought more precons.

I played these for a bit then thought that I understood the game enough to try my own deck, with a rough idea of card type numbers and selections. My first decks were less than perfect to say the least. But I got better (still less than perfect :) ). This is a path most card players have travelled Im sure.

I can see why LotR is successful, its CCG Co-OP fun. A great beer and pretzels game that you can play with your buddies. Its also successful because there is nothing like it on the market. You are stating that because its not a tourney game and generates $$ that Star Wars does not need that edge. LotR is impossible to make into a Tourney game because of the nature of the automated villain deck

But SW is VS and can actually support tournament gameplay. Being forced to grab 5 cards you dont want in your deck just to get a Jedi Luke seems overkill. Having to put  those same 5 cards in your deck 3 times to get 3 Lukes is ludicrous.

Yes I among the lucky few who wanted VS and got it. But its a moot point in the end if they hobble it before the gate opens.



#8 dbmeboy

dbmeboy

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,328 posts

Posted 21 August 2012 - 01:06 AM

As a side note for those who keep referring to have 3x a card, there will be a limit of 2x any objective.  Some cards might come with more than one objective, allowing you to get more than 2 of them.  Also, some objectives might be limited to 1x.  Doesn't really change the discussion, just thought you'd like to know.



#9 Jivewookiee

Jivewookiee

    Member

  • Members
  • 46 posts

Posted 21 August 2012 - 01:26 AM

dbmeboy said:

I'm somewhat skeptical of the deck building, but I'll at least give it a chance.  It would be a rule they could change later without much trouble.  They could even keep some hybrid of it where you still had to build in 5 card blocks but not have those tied to an objective.  I think I would prefer full deck building control though, because I love building decks (so says my bag of 40-odd MtG decks…).

One interesting note on the deck building, I think it's intended to be a balance mechanism.  One of the designers at GenCon explained it by saying that if you wanted one really powerful card you'd have to take the 4 other cards in the set which might not be as powerful.  I'm not sure how I feel about any kind of balance mechanism in a competitive card game.  It shifts emphasis to play skill and luck and away from deck building, which I feel should be as important as play skill.

Another reason they gave for their deck building rules: it will force you to use the "less powerful" cards that otherwise nobody would ever play with.

This, a thousand times THIS! Forcing someone to play sub-par cards to balance a great card is a bad and very heavy handed way to ensure balance. How about trying to make cards that will be useful in at least one deck type?

Also deck building is where 80% of card games are won if you ask me. Most experienced Magic players will do the same action given the same hand and board. So it is all about out thinking your opponent in the deck building side of things. Most successful competitive decks come out of no where, where some smart bastard has figured out a cool combo no body else saw. Then the community make their versions of that deck trying to ride the wave of someone else's success, but they have already moved on to some other odd deck idea.

If you want to balance Luke, fine, I couldnt agree more that the game needs to be balanced. But do it within the Luke card, costs more ect. Dont make us take 5 other crappy cards to balance a cool character



#10 binarymelon

binarymelon

    Member

  • Members
  • 7 posts

Posted 21 August 2012 - 01:40 AM

Since that resources don't really "ramp up" as the game progresses, does it make sense to allow for freeform deck construction?



#11 Jivewookiee

Jivewookiee

    Member

  • Members
  • 46 posts

Posted 21 August 2012 - 01:50 AM

binarymelon said:

Since that resources don't really "ramp up" as the game progresses, does it make sense to allow for freeform deck construction?

Good question, I really dont have a definitive answer for it. Perhaps there should be a card type or keyword that can generate resources.

Chewie (Mechanic Version) Generate one resource when paying for a droid or starship.

Something along those lines. If you can mana ramp with "fortifications" or "bases" I cant see why normal deck wont use them, thus balancing the Luke Demi God problem we seem to be having.



#12 dbmeboy

dbmeboy

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,328 posts

Posted 21 August 2012 - 02:18 AM

 There is some ability to resource ramp. Some locations and units have resource icons that allow them to be exhausted to generate resources. In the demo game at least that was one of the only ways to play the emperor.



#13 hyperion_pb

hyperion_pb

    Member

  • Members
  • 21 posts

Posted 21 August 2012 - 03:05 AM

 I guess that this thread is not supposed to turn into a for/against vote about the deck building mechanic, yet I cannot resist writing that I like the idea of  deck building by pods that seems to be proposed in this game. Having played MtG, SW CCG and others from the 90s, then LoTR as only LCG , there are two drawbacks to conventional deck building: 1) new or casual players will never take the time to build decks card by cards and would be reluctant to play the game; 2) many cards become useless over the years because they do not fit in the best versions of decks;  then you end up with many cards that are never used.

The proposed variant of deck building, reminiscent of what is used in some non-LCG nor CCG card games (e.g., in the deck buklding variant of the "Omen" card game), may overcome this two issues. I like that. The price is that the deck building finesse is somehow reduced, but this shifts the game to gameplay instead of deck building, and that is good point also that could make the game different from the other LCGs. As such, I am willing to let FFG do their own way!



#14 Jivewookiee

Jivewookiee

    Member

  • Members
  • 46 posts

Posted 21 August 2012 - 03:20 AM

hyperion_pb said:

 I guess that this thread is not supposed to turn into a for/against vote about the deck building mechanic, yet I cannot resist writing that I like the idea of  deck building by pods that seems to be proposed in this game. Having played MtG, SW CCG and others from the 90s, then LoTR as only LCG , there are two drawbacks to conventional deck building: 1) new or casual players will never take the time to build decks card by cards and would be reluctant to play the game; 2) many cards become useless over the years because they do not fit in the best versions of decks;  then you end up with many cards that are never used.

The proposed variant of deck building, reminiscent of what is used in some non-LCG nor CCG card games (e.g., in the deck buklding variant of the "Omen" card game), may overcome this two issues. I like that. The price is that the deck building finesse is somehow reduced, but this shifts the game to gameplay instead of deck building, and that is good point also that could make the game different from the other LCGs. As such, I am willing to let FFG do their own way!

By that logic no new player to any CCG will ever learn or want to make their own deck which i find highly erroneous. Having complex deck building in no way takes any fun away from actual play. Hell thats the whole point of deck building, to make a kick ass deck, then PLAY with it. Casual Players are probably going to be satisfied with the 4 pre cons. 

In every card game you will end up with cards you dont use. You might be a Dark Side only player and end up with a lot of useless Light Side stuff. There might be a card that people are conflicted about. You may hate it and never use it whilst others do. Its inevitable.

Even people new to an LCG will soon tire of a deck slot system when they find they cant fit in all the cards they want because of slot and objective restrictions. Making cards 3 per deck or having powerful cards like the Luke Bomb 1 per deck. This is a tried and tested method that works. It does no good to try to reinvent the wheel if you end up with a square.

People who are buying force packs (Or whatever they go with) every month are the people who fund continued support by FFG and they should be catered for.



#15 Mattr0polis

Mattr0polis

    Member

  • Members
  • 820 posts

Posted 21 August 2012 - 04:04 AM

I kind of like the 'pod' building system. For one thing, it will save a lot of time since you will need to be building both a Dark and a Light deck for tournaments. Magic, Game of Thrones, etc. you only really need to perfect one deck so you can spend the extra time on that. This is one thing that took a LOT of time for Decipher Star Wars CCG.

Also, I would not say this takes ANY skill away from the competitive players of the game. Good players will find the best/most efficient batches, or the ones that synergize the best together. Or the ones worth taking a few subpar cards. And then the meta game will start to happen, where people find out what is good and what batches are good to counteract the popular batches, etc, repeat.

It's the same thing as any other card game just on a much more micro scale.

Different, but I think I'm going to like it. Much more time playing the actual game instead of time spent deck building two decks.



#16 MarthWMaster

MarthWMaster

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,207 posts

Posted 21 August 2012 - 04:17 AM

I hate hate HATE this idea. I didn't think there was anything FFG could do to convince me not to buy this game, but once again they've defied my expectations as a gamer, this time by introducing an identifiably ludicrous pod-based deckbuilding system. As a note, I was one of the people who was relieved when it became more or less guaranteed that Star Wars was being reworked as a PvP-style game, a point at which many fans were turned off completely. I predict that the same scenario will happen once again when this pod system becomes more commonly understood among the prospective playerbase. Mind you, I'm not trying to insult anyone who happens to like this system, but attempting to soften my tenor over this aspect of the game would be dishonest, and I want to be clear about how unlikely I am to purchase the game now, in light of the newfound information.

The only way I can see this style of deckbuilding not resulting in a horrible experience for, and I'm not even going to say "hard-core gamers" as that term is getting tossed around a lot in this thread, but players who simply enjoy building their own decks, or, for a term that can be used repeatedly without becoming annoying, deckbuilders, is for the pod system to be optional, and used only if both players in a match have agreed upon it beforehand, or if the event rules call for it.



#17 Mattr0polis

Mattr0polis

    Member

  • Members
  • 820 posts

Posted 21 August 2012 - 04:30 AM

But don't you think there is a still some skill in finding the pods that work best together? Or for finding which pods will help you against the current meta? Yes, you don't get to figure out what 60 cards you want that work the best together, but you get to figure out which batches work good together, which ones are worth taking even if it means a couple subpar cards, which ones are horrible together, etc.

There's still a lot of skill here. It's just not what we're used to. Basically, we must unlearn what we have learned.



#18 Jivewookiee

Jivewookiee

    Member

  • Members
  • 46 posts

Posted 21 August 2012 - 04:31 AM

 Im happy with it being an OPTIONAL rule. This is one of the reasons I started this thread. It cannot be the default. We need to stop this NOW before it goes live. Having a list of the cards that form the SLOT online or even in the force packs is fine by me, a series of web articles on how to include new cards from the Force Packs would also work.

Please FFG, gives both sides of this debate the option to play the way we want.



#19 Jivewookiee

Jivewookiee

    Member

  • Members
  • 46 posts

Posted 21 August 2012 - 04:34 AM

Mattr0polis said:

But don't you think there is a still some skill in finding the pods that work best together? Or for finding which pods will help you against the current meta? Yes, you don't get to figure out what 60 cards you want that work the best together, but you get to figure out which batches work good together, which ones are worth taking even if it means a couple subpar cards, which ones are horrible together, etc.

There's still a lot of skill here. It's just not what we're used to. Basically, we must unlearn what we have learned.

Choosing the best combo of ten cards from a twenty card pool is tremendously easier than 60 cards from hundreds+ cards. 5 Hours after the release of a Force Pack the net will have a rough idea of what to use and what not to. Give them a day and the new "optimal" build is done.

It takes so much away from the game



#20 MarthWMaster

MarthWMaster

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,207 posts

Posted 21 August 2012 - 04:38 AM

 Mattr0polis said:

 

But don't you think there is a still some skill in finding the pods that work best together? Or for finding which pods will help you against the current meta? Yes, you don't get to figure out what 60 cards you want that work the best together, but you get to figure out which batches work good together, which ones are worth taking even if it means a couple subpar cards, which ones are horrible together, etc.

There's still a lot of skill here. It's just not what we're used to. Basically, we must unlearn what we have learned.

 

 

There is indeed skill involved. I'm not disputing that. But I think that completely overhauling the most core mechanic of collectible card gaming is a mistake. AEG revealed their stand-alone game Smash Up at GenCon, which is being marketed as a "shufflebuilding game," in which players select two prebuilt decks from a set of 8 in all, and simply shuffle the two they've chosen together to form the deck they will play for the game. While that works for something that is understood from the get-go as a party game, I have the conviction that it is wrong for a game that attempts to bring collectible Star Wars gaming back. But with that being said, I can absolutely appreciate the pod system as an optional mechanic, to allow for that same party experience, so long as it doesn't interfere with my chosen and well-loved way of playing CCGs and LCGs.

I would also argue that, with all due respect, Yoda is the wrong person to quote in support of a deckbuilding system that, as has already been mentioned, will make the game tremendously easier to build decks effectively for. Yoda doesn't beat around the bush when training Jedi. That guy is hard-core gaming at its finest. He'd never choose the quick and easy path of pod-based deckbuilding.






© 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