Jump to content

dormouse

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    1,680

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by dormouse

  1. Posted

    There has been an update to the newest FAQ which clarifies a couple of issues that were in need of addressing but were left of the FAQ that was uploaded to the webserver. IF you have downloaded FAQ 3.3 please delete it and re-download the FAQ. The file name is the same, but the lead page will mark it as 3.3.1.

    If you just perused the FAQ and not downloaded it, please familiarize yourself with the new FAQ.

    Sorry for the mistake and I hope to see you all at GenCon.

    Damon Stone

  2. Posted

    There has been an update to the newest FAQ which clarifies a couple of issues that were in need of addressing but were left of the FAQ that was uploaded to the webserver. IF you have downloaded FAQ 3.3 please delete it and re-download the FAQ. The file name is the same, but the lead page will mark it as 3.3.1.

    If you just perused the FAQ and not downloaded it, please familiarize yourself with the new FAQ.

    Sorry for the mistake and I hope to see you all at GenCon.

    Damon Stone

  5. Posted

    Hello Players!

    I'm gathering all unresolved questions, pleas for errata, and points of clarification for the newest FAQ. Please post to this thread any questions or concerns that you have that have not yet made their way into the FAQ. Please also post any problems or points for clarification with the general rulebook and the current FAQ (1.3).

    Thank you for your efforts, and here is to a fun and competitive regionals season for Call of Cthulhu.

    Damon Stone
    Associate LCG Designer
    Fantasy Flight Games

  6. Posted

    Wytefang said:

    Good points have been made in several older posts here by Dormouse and UnifiedShoe (very good post by Unified a few back).  Since I'm not a designer, really, I tend to side with the customer's perspective here - I'd prefer they tried to at least somewhat cater to the fanbase, in certain regards.  That being said, I'm also a realist and realize that the reality showcases the fact that there's probably no real consensus among even the hardcore players, about what should be done with the game. 

    I should also point out I don't fundamentally disagree with what US has said. I am a player first and I want my games to be of a certain kind... but some games just aren't for me and that is not the designers fault, and it is not mine. Just like my last girlfriend. Totally hot, smart, funny, etc. etc. but we just weren't a good match. Sometimes that is the way of it.

    Now if the thing that would have made that relationship work so we were both happy was a small change in my expectations then it is in our best interest to make it. If it is a small change on her part then it is in our best interest to make it.

    I'm not saying that the designer should ignore their player base. I'm saying that we on this forum are only the smallest fraction of this games player base and not even a good representation of it (in regards to having the same focus and level of dedication). That if we want something thatis counter to the purposeful design of the game, and the game is successfully meeting the needs of the greater player base, then it is our expectations that need to change. If the game is not currently working the way it was designed (a distinct possibility on one level or another) and the player base small or large is not satisfied then the game must change.

    Think of my recent posts as challenging some of the assumptions about how skewed the game is, what the best ways of fixing it are, if the fixes might not already be in place, and what our role in the skewed environment might be. I don't mind one race being dominant. I don't mind a couple of deck types showing far more success than others in tournament play. What I mind is it being so skewed in reality or perception that no one tries to play the other decks and races. We have yet to have a deck type/race that is so dominant that it has curtailed the development of the game for an extended period of time (this game came out a year ago and we've had a different deck type complained about as OP about every two months since the release of the first BP. When we have a deck so dominant that six months go by and everyone is playing that deck or teching against that deck and only that deck then I will absolutely agree.

    Given the nature of he LCG format I've found that a "wait and see" approach has always shown a solution to the problems that crop up. If Dwaves and Throwers are still the decks to beat in the environment two months after Marched is widely available, I'll add my voices to yours.

  7. Posted

     The LCG format is selling incredibly well. I mean incredibly well. Some printings are selling out in multiple games in multiple countries within months. Nothing is going to hit the level of the big three, but outside of them, it is easily comparable. That is not to say they are doing the same per unit sales, but with the LCG format they can stay as profitable with a smaller overall printing and sale. You'd be amazed at how much money the randomized nature of the CCG adds to the game.

    The problem is that W:I is an LCG, not a CCG, and far from a miniatures game. Miniatures war gamers have a certain expectation about their armies being supported in cycles and when new pieces and army books are released. CCG players expect relatively equal support for each faction, though the power level of each faction will ebb and flow. The LCG model is much closer to this, but still almost as far away. Each supplement pack needs to have close to the same number of cards for each faction to keep things balanced number wise, the boxed expansions will allow for surges in card numbers (though W:I seems to be taking a slightly different approach to expansions than Thrones so there is definitely room for variation).and predictably this will affect power balance to some amount.

    Producing more than seven stand-alone factions is going to require a revamping of the distribution/production of the LCG format. Producing new factions in starter deck style including a capital board outside of the regular BP format is certainly doable... the question then comes to how do you continue to support that faction... because its players will want it supported an equal amount as the main six, without shorting the main six races that the game was absed around? Do you include cards in the BP? Do increase the amount of BP's available in a month? All of these are doable, but they have their own problems... many which involve an increased monetary investment on FFG's part with predictable diminishing returns.

    The fact is the game works as it is. By taking a hard-line about how they will handle the other factions they have managed players expectations. People know what they are going to get and can choose how involved they want to be with the game. If someone will only play if the Tomb Kings will be a stand alone faction then they know this is not the game for them. If someone is thinking about getting in with hopes of the Wood Elves or Ogers eventually becoming a playable faction then they know ahead of time that this is extremely unlikely to happen, but perhaps they can pick up the Core Set or Companion Set and play with a minimal commitment.

  10. Posted

     That by the way should answer your question.

    Every faction can make a fun loyalty deck, but winning against a tuned deck... well DElf can't do it right now, they need Skaven to provide teeth. This looks to be changing but I don't think it is there yet. DElf/Undead looks like you may be able to get something going to win more consistently and the Enemy Cycle looks interesting... My recommendation is start building and tweaking now. As the new stuff comes out keep re-evaluating your efforts. When you have something you are proud of and confident in post it. see if the gang here can provide some more tweaks.

  11. Posted

     The fact that W:I is selling as well as it is pretty much disproves all the points being brought up as they are being applied.

    What the complaints boil down to me are that the competitive scene is skewed greatly (and I agree), that there are three deck types (you really need to include dedicated rush) that hold the top rungs in the food chain is a problem for those who are dedicated to one particular race AND want to play competitively.

    Lets examine the difference between a true competitive player of W:I and serious fan of W:I. A true competitive player doesn't really care what race they play, or even what deck they play. They want the most degenerate and exploitive build, the greater an NPE it creates then the more assured they are of sweeping the field. Now some of them also play for fun, and like variety, and bucking the meta with their own flavor, but in the end winning is more important to them than the illusion of loyalty to a single faction or alignment.

    A serious fan of W:I has an alignment or even a race or two they really, really like and always go to that side/faction. They'll play other stuff, but would rather splash into that race rather than play outside of it, and would rather do mono-race if at all possible. They want to win, but they do not approach the game in a fashion that will allow for them to win consistently unless their faction is on top at the moment.

    The thing that should be remembered at all times is both of these make up less than an estimated 5% of this games main buyers.

    The majority of this games buyers are casual players who will never play in a tournament unless they get roped into it by friends. Who may be completionists, buying enough to have a full play set or one-of's buying a single set/box/pack of the product as they become available.

    The game is designed and marketed with their play experience in mind. The way the card distribution of the Core Set is done, and the switch to x3 of all supplements bears this out as does the fact that our most competitive players who harp the most on something being broken/OP have praised the balance of the "limited format." The game is a fast paced blood-bath by design. It is how it is marketed. It is selling extremely well as it is. Expecting or demanding for the game to change for a fraction of its buyers pleasure is not logical.

    FFG however does care about and listen to the serious fans and the ultra-competitive players, and we know this because it is we who force the creation and growth of the FAQ. It is we who do the play testing, and it is we who have the most direct interaction with James and other employees of FFG, and it is from us that they get their volunteers to run demo's and the like at tournaments, as well as provide a solid presence at events like Gencon to show-off the popularity of the game.

    The very nature of the LCG means there will always be a couple of deck types or races that will be on top of the heap. But just like every race was more or less equal at first release of the CS, and Orcs jumped out with the first battle pack, and then Orc/Skaven, then DElf/Skaven, then BT, then Dwarfs, they too will fall aside. I'm going to tell you now, even as I knew the Dwarf deck was going to be the deck to beat when everyone else was complaining about BT, it is no longer what I'm focused on. There is something else out there on the horizon. The design cycle is 3-6 months ahead of release, and release is generally two months minimum ahead of players' decks.

    There is an old saying about the weather in San Francisco, if you don't like the weather walk a couple of blocks. If you don't like the environment wait for a new pack or two. It'll change, and the more open you are to acknowledging this change the easier it is to find the new hotness while it is still new and hot. We make the environment as surely as James does. If everyone decided that Orc/Skaven were no longer their best chance but BT and Dwarfs were then rather than seeing the flux of Orc/Skaven a number of regionals had we saw the numbers skewed in a different way. I've pretty much come to the conclusion that net-decking in this game is actually proving detrimental. A cabal of players have decided that deck X is new hotness and the HDIC and are persuasive enough to convince others and people swarm to that. If they had just posted their decks discussed the hows and whys and let the tournament results speak for themselves, I think we would have seen FAR more diversity in what showed up at Gencon. That diversity may have actually caused a different result. Someone may have come up with a deck that caught people by surprise, or one which was not strong enough to beat a diverse field but was the BT-kryptonite, giving one or two of them a loss that would have allowed for another deck type to have been present in the final cut.

    *shrug*

    Hard to say for sure, but I doubt all those players who showed up with BT and Dwarf variants didn't just stumble on them in the last month when Orc/Skaven was what was heavily over-shadowing the regionals.

     

    Let's see what the rest of the Enemy Cycle does to the environment and see if BT and Dwarfs are still choking the environment when Marched becomes generally available. With Worlds put to bed James will no doubt be incorporating what he saw into his design plans as well as taking at look at the current environment to see if there are some tweaks to the game that can be done by way of the FAQ but keeping in mind what he has coming down the pike already for us. He is a wicked smart guy, I have faith that if the current environment is not to his liking, and he does not feel the Enemy Cycle and Marched address this enough, that he will take appropriate steps by way of FAQ or the next set to adjust it.

     

  12. Posted

     Actually there was some discussion. I told Michael Hurley head of the LCG department that the two best decks were Dwarf and Bolt Thrower, with DElf Control (via Skaven) as a somewhat distant 3rd. That a Dwarf deck would most likely win the entire thing and that it would be based around Support Destruction, Slayers, and Mining Tunnels, and at least one or two decks would be giants and do well despite what a lot of players see as a violation of the most basic deck building tenet. Now I did not expect nearly so many Dwarf or BT decks, but I did expect them to do well and make up the lion's share of the final players.

    As to why these decks showed up in these numbers? I actually suspect it has a fair amount to do with the posts here about how broken the decks are compared to everything else. Everyone wants to play the "best" deck, and most players would rather net-deck (some with tweaks some without) rather than come up with an original idea. Others would take the base concept and runaway with it (Dut's is an excellent example of this).

    And yes I believe if the game is operating the way the designers intended it is not the game that is wrong... by definition, it is the expectations of the players. If I want a wild knock 'em down blood bath, chess is not the game for me. The game is not wrong and does not need to be changed, I need to either change my expectations or find a game that meets my needs. To expect the game to abandon its philosophy and the designers to abandon their vision, and the publishing company to abandon their marketing campaign and target audience, is... a tad myopic.

  13. Posted

    Even ignoring that you can only sacrifice your own units, that it is a "do [blank] to do [blank]" format means it is a cost for the effect and costs can only ever be paid with your own cards/resources otherwise what is to prevent you from reaching across and using resources of your opponents to pay for your card effects?

    It is all the same thing.

  16. Posted

    It was the position they posted a bit back. I've been kicking around on FFG forums for about seven years now, If I thought I would have copious amounts of free time I'd certainly miss the ability to post on the boards, but I've been trying to ween myself off for about a month now.

    I like Martin's universe precisely because it is so gritty and realistic. Someone being a protagonist does not automatically protect them from the ax (or executioners sword as the case may be). The game carries that over, with pivotal military battles and a novel unique character mechanic... but more than the military challenges it is the intrigue gambits and power struggles in the books and the game that make it different from a number of other games. Those three challenges and how you can leverage them into various forms of advantage make interesting deck building strategies and in-game tactical decisions so rich. As to Martin dying before he finishes, well his fans my off him themselves if Dances doesn't come out soon. gui%C3%B1o.gifJ/K

  17. Posted

     I could see how that could be fierce.

    My natural inclination would be two similar Greyjoy Raid decks one with a second focus on saves and the other on either income denial or kill.

    Targ/GJ also seems particularly brutal pairing if it is a UO/Intimidate deck matched with a burn deck.

  19. Posted

      One of my favorite quotes from Bruce Lee is, "Don't get set into one form, adapt it and build your own, and let it grow, be like water. Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless — like water. Now you put water in a cup, it becomes the cup; You put water into a bottle it becomes the bottle; You put it in a teapot it becomes the teapot. Now water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend." To me this is about not getting trapped in patterns of thought. Being fluid of mind, constantly seeking out holes, filling spaces, will revel to you the true nature of the game and the meta-game. This knowledge, as all knowledge, is really self-knowledge. This leads to clarity of vision, clarity of thought letting you pierce the fog of war.

    The ability to see beyond the moment is what lets the best players/deck-designers predict trends as well as avoid static thinking, seeing cards and recognizing their potential, seeing the synergy in cards whose release spans months. There will always be calls about certain factions and cards and strategies being over or under powered. Look at what is, get a sense for what will be, and plan accordingly. Learn to improvise, adapt, and overcome. The decks are important but the player... the player is what wins games. Be water my friends.

     

    This is the signal of my last week as a participant of this board. I've accepted a position on FFG's design team in the LCG department. For the seven years I've been playing this game and the six years that I've been posting on the forums (in all of its iterations) I've had a blast. I wish you well in life, and much success with this game. I hope to meet you on the field of battle of an LCG one day.

    Damon "dormouse" Stone

    P.S. I'll still lurk and you can always hit me up via PM here.

  20. Posted

     I have not been told that I am not allowed to continue to post on the forums, but none of the current designers actively participate on the forums which leads me to believe it is just a matter of time before I am asked to also refrain from posting socially on the forums. Even if they don't ask I probably will vastly limit my postings here for my own policies. Honestly how strict they would be in comparison to each other is debatable).

    I know Nate and James both visit the forums with some regularity and are well aware of what the vocal players on their relevant forums have to say about any given topic. Both of them (and now myself included) were players first, and still consider themselves players. The LCG department is a bit of point of pride with the company, and AGoT as the first title they produced in the CCG world and first to make the transition to LCG and W:I as the first game designed to be an LCG hold very special places in the company's collective hearts. Everyone is a fan of these games, there is little here that gets discussed that hasn't been brought up in the halls and lunch room in addition to design meetings.

    I see no disconnect between the designers and the player community, though I do see a marked difference in priority. FFG is not just concerned with the bottom line but with each game holding to the LCG philosophy. Part of this means that casual play, limited play, and straight from the box experience holds far more priority for the designers than it does for most posters here (most wouldn't give it a first let alone second thought). We are a very vocal, very competitive, and truth be told, very entitled bunch. We want what we want when we want it. Most of us can remember that the designers have a longer and more complete view of the game, both in cards coming down the line and direction the game is going, but also in how the games are supposed to feel.

    I got into a debate in the WE ban thread about the game intentionally being designed to be fast and furious and that the chance of a second turn victory was something that was intentionally added to the game by design. That control decks needed to be fast and that resource acceleration and card advantage were designed for speed purposefully, not by accident. As long as players believe that things like that are design error rather than design intent, and base all their decisions as if it was unintentional they are going to have a skewed view of the game. Not too different is the player or purported wanna-be player who insists that they will play only if their race is present as a stand alone loyalty bearing faction, regardless of what that would do to game balance, design space, and how it would or would not fit into the LCG concept.

    Now designers make mistakes. No designer of any good game would ever dream of even intimating otherwise, and that is why Nate, James, and I will continue to lurk in the forums. It is why there are play test groups outside of FFG. Answering every question on the forum, while not breaking NDA, giving messages that do not contradict what comes from marketing, and not constantly defending design choices would take a lot of time and effort. Time and effort that could be spent actively trying to put new cards, mechanics and strategies into the game. Nate and James both consult current competitive and social players when they need to... and they have friends amongst the active player base who are ALWAYS more than happy to give unsolicited advice (though now they have one less cool.gif ) so they are far from out of touch. It is one of the benefits of working for a company like FFG. Small enough that each person is intimate with the projects they work on, have a real sense of ownership and pride, but large enough to do amazing things like buck the current gaming industry and put forward something as innovative as the LCG, or break their own molds with something like LotR LCG (which is just good fun and novel design, congrats Nate) and know that the FFG name and the IP's they can get allow for that experimentation.

    As to what game I'm on for, I've been brought in specifically for A Game of Thrones, though because of my experience with all the LCG titles, and having play tested three out of the four core set games, I've been told that I'll be having some hands on for all the games at one point or another, but this is James' baby. He has a vision of where he wants to take it and I've been very impressed with everything I've seen from him so far. I intend to support him in whatever capacity he wants/needs. This game is in not just good but great hands.

    Most of my time right now looks to be focused on AGoT... with the move to the Twin Cities, a new job, and a new chapter in my life, I'm going to have extremely limited time to actively participate in discussions here regardless of what FFG policies are (one of the main reasons I've been so silent on the boards as of late). Rest assured, I'm a fan first of this game and Thrones. I'll definitely be logging in.

     

    P.S.

    Yes I can still be PM'ed through these forums, so anyone that wants to talk to me or rail at me is encouraged to friend me and send me your thoughts. I cannot guarantee I will return every one in a timely manner, but I promise to read them and discuss them if the team is unaware of your concerns (hell, I completely disagree about WE needing to be banned, but I have already brought that concern up). 

    T-Minus 10 days.

  21. Posted

       One of my favorite quotes from Bruce Lee is, "Don't get set into one form, adapt it and build your own, and let it grow, be like water. Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless — like water. Now you put water in a cup, it becomes the cup; You put water into a bottle it becomes the bottle; You put it in a teapot it becomes the teapot. Now water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend." To me this is about not getting trapped in patterns of thought. Being fluid of mind, constantly seeking out holes, filling spaces, will revel to you the true nature of the game and the meta-game. This knowledge, as all knowledge, is really self-knowledge. This leads to clarity of vision, clarity of thought letting you pierce the fog of war.

       The ability to see beyond the moment is what lets the best players/designers predict trends as well as avoid static thinking, seeing cards and recognizing their potential, seeing the synergy in cards whose release spans months. There will always be calls about certain factions and cards and strategies being over or under powered. Look at what is, get a sense for what will be, and plan accordingly. Learn to improvise, adapt, and overcome. The decks are important but the player... the player is what wins games. Be water my friends.

     

       This is the signal of my last week as a participant of this board. I've accepted a position on FFG's design team in the LCG department. For the 17 months I've been playing this game and the year that I've been posting here, I wish you well in life, and much success with this game. I hope to meet you on the field of battle of an LCG one day.

    Damon "dormouse" Stone

  22. Posted

    Freerider said:

    Jen and I will be up there. In fact we'll probably leave work early and drive up early to beat the traffic.

    The kid is away at camp this week so the adults can get away and play gui%C3%B1o.gif

    Now, have to try to build a deck or two tonight.

    Don't worry about deck building. I don't have any decks that have been updated in months. I'll be practicing my ability to lose gracefully.

  24. Posted

     Official FFG representatives very rarely post on here, but important topics tend to find their way into discussions about the game. I'm sure this will get brought up by someone sometime in the very near future.

    I do think expecting them to elevate a national or continental champion to world championship status when they have no representative or direct control over the tournament, is very realistic. I do think that you certainly have a sound argument about equal support (if only in the design a card portion) for the Euro-Champion.

×
×
  • Create New...