Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About scolex2

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  • MSN
  • Website URL
  • ICQ
  • Yahoo
  • Skype

Profile Information

  • Location
    Landing, New Jersey, United States
  1. It makes little sense for FFG to make multiple Star Wars card games and compete against themselves. Also, I hope Darksbane isn't right. "During the In Flight Report at Gencon they did say that it isn't likely there will be another SW LCG but that there were sure to be other SW card games" I would rather have an LCG. Even more than that I don't want to see FFG seemingly give up on the LCG format.
  2. Adam said: ^I meant in "ALL" PVP games. I am clearly not very good explaining myself, so sorry. All I meant in my first post in that line was that sometimes people enjoy a break from being in conflict with each other and prefer to work together as a group with everyone at the table. And I meant antagonism as in destroying/stealing things from your opponents, betrayals, playing "take that" cards, that sort of thing. Sometimes it is nice to have a change of pace. And being able to build decks for the game means I'll be able to replay it more than some other co-op's since I can try new things each time. Maybe that makes sense now, just trying to share my opinion. So you really expect the AI won't be destroying or taking any of your cards? Or is it only a conflict/antagonism/betrayal when another human is doing it? There are plenty of stand alone games that allow deck customization. Ascension, dominion, blood bowl, thunderstone, arctic scavengers, etc. This game would be better off as a standalone game with frequent expansions. Mainly because this game gains next to nothing from being an LCG. I'm not against this game or purely co-op games, but I am against this game being an LCG AND purely co-op. Nothing about the way this game is built requires that it be an LCG. However, large parts of how this game is built will preclude draft/sealed play, tournaments, and other things most would want/expect from an LCG/CCG/TCG. TLDR: opportunity cost
  3. You seem to have your own implied definitions for words with exceptions of your own making. These definitions also seem to change between your posts. 1st post: "It's a great option for those who want to enjoy a game for the experience, who want a break from the tension and antagonism of a PvP conflict game" 2nd post: "I don't know what you mean by no need for antagonism or conflict. You're apparently going by some other definitions of the words because that is what PvP is about. I don't mean personally antagonizing someone, but you are playing AGAINST the other player and trying to BEAT them. That is conflict, and your opponent the antagonist. Some people like an occasional break from this. Clearly you don't. But for many, that's what co-op is for. The feeling of working together and puzzling things out is refreshing, and it's especially nice for playing with players of disparate skill level, for whom a PvP game just won't be half as fun." 3rd post: "PVP is by definition a conflict-based game." 4th post: "PVP means conflict (unless it's something like Dominion). What would a PVP Star Wars be if not a battle or a struggle? All the good Star Wars games are battle-oriented." Yet, according to your latest post Star Wars LCG would have more conflict than many PvP games. By your own example Dominion. What of a game like Ascension then? The players are at odds with only one capable of victory, but they also make no direct negative actions towards each other. The game is more of a competition for resources. Or does that game have more conflict than Star Wars because players fight npc monsters? Oh wait, you do that in Star Wars LCG too, but you do it together. So which has more conflict then? By your definition the Star Wars LCG will have plenty of conflict. Then why are you bringing up potential conflict in a PvP version as a negative, when It doesn't seem to matter to you when the game is cooperative? Also, by your definition of cooperative when I play NHL 12 with my friends against AI it is a cooperative game. Yet the same game using the internet to face other real players is not. There is no difference. It matters not if I and a friend play against an ai or another team of players. It is still the same game. The word cooperative doesn't mean that every human involved must be on the same side. Please explain how 20+ players working together towards a common goal in a Football game are not playing cooperatively simply because the opposition is human. Is it suddenly co-op if they play against an AI in a videogame? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_game What of Bang? Some players are on teams, yet others are not. You may not know who is on your team, the teams are not binding, and the teams can change. Even worse, you don't always lose if you aren't on the winning team. Where does that fit in to your contrived definitions of cooperative and conflict?
  4. Adam said: PVP is by definition a conflict-based game. Like I said, you're reading that word some other kind of way. I don't know anyone who necessarily gets stressed from PVP, but co-op offers a break from the norm, and a customizable version ensures the game's longevity if you enjoy trying new decks even when you know an old one already works. I've never heard of co-op versions of Warhammer or Magic or any such game, so that's news to me. Seems like a bizarre concept to me, but if it works, then I'd certainly see your point. I'd still rather a professionally designed co-op than a fan made variant, personally. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conflict Collision, disagreement, fight, battle, struggle, clash, controversy, quarrel, discord, antagonism, incompatibility. These are words used to define conflict. None of them to me speak of a friendly game where the players are on opposite sides. Every definition of the word conflict has negative connotations. Once again, if two people play a game and have fun is there a conflict because one did not win? Only if the players make it as such. You, not I have the meaning of the word wrong. It implies there is strife. Strife will not be there by default. http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=judge/resources/sfr2hg I was talking about officially designed variants actually. Two Headed Giant for magic (2v2 games) have major tournaments and banned lists. I have also played in large (and official) 3v3 sealed deck tournaments.
  5. Adam said: But many of the complaints so far about LotR have been something like, "I've already fine tuned a deck that can beat this quest consistently. When new packs come out, it only takes a few tries and then there's no challenge left." If you beat a quest with one deck, you have to try new decks or it isn't going to be fun. Some people enjoy tinkering for tinkering's sake, rather than experimenting just to make the best deck possible and then not playing anymore. For such people, being able to play against the same quest decks repeatedly offers a consistent means of testing a deck, and deck building with a friend is especially fun as you try to make decks that complement each other -- something that is not part of PvP. Also, I don't know what you mean by no need for antagonism or conflict. You're apparently going by some other definitions of the words because that is what PvP is about. I don't mean personally antagonizing someone, but you are playing AGAINST the other player and trying to BEAT them. That is conflict, and your opponent the antagonist. Some people like an occasional break from this. Clearly you don't. But for many, that's what co-op is for. The feeling of working together and puzzling things out is refreshing, and it's especially nice for playing with players of disparate skill level, for whom a PvP game just won't be half as fun. As far as experimenting with decks I see it as being far more fun to find the best way to beat as many different opponents as possible than to find as many ways as possible to beat a single static and unthinking opponent over and over again. There are plenty of cooperative formats for traditionally PvP games. I not only enjoy them, but play them frequently and build decks just for them. Warhammer:Invasion, Raw Deal, Magic, and more have co-op formats. Magic even has tournaments for some co-op formats. You don't have to give up co-op for pvp, but sadly this doesn't work the other way around. What I mean by no antagonsim or conflict is exactly that. I know plenty of players who can have just as much fun losing or playing a goofy deck that has no real shot. Just because only one of you can win doesn't automatically bring some stress or conflict in. If both players had fun playing the game, where is the conflict? It is the players fault entirely if a fun game wasn't fun because not everyone can win in the end. These kind of players would feel the exact same way if the AI beat them. Remember I am not arguing against purely co-op games. I am arguing against a purely co-op LCG. You give up half of what makes LCG/TCG/CCG games good for solo play. Instead they could make the same game a stand alone with expansions like Cosmic Encounter or Munchkin. What would change from it being an LCG? Maybe having a slightly slower release schedule for new cards? As others have said FFG is not likely to compete against themselves with 2 Star Wars LCG's. I'd rather see this as a stand alone game, and get a fully realized Star Wars LCG.
  6. Adam, PvP games are not automatically about just playing to win. They do not inhibit experiencing the game, and there is no need for antagonism or conflict. People who can't handle themselves inject these faults. Do not presume to know the thoughts, motivations, and actions of everyone who plays and enjoys PvP games. Were I to do the same I could accuse all of the co-op supporters of just being afraid to lose or other such faults. Friendly competition can be great fun, and one will always learn more from a loss than a win. Let me also confirm that I was indeed calling co-op inferior to pvp for lcg/ccg/tcg games. Not in general, just for these sort of games. Had this been announced as a stand alone game I'd be rather pleased. Especially since expansions could contain entire new encounter decks instead of a few cards to add to the existing one each month. But it just feels like co-op has been crammed into a place where it does not fit or belong. There are no tournaments, no draft or sealed, the opponent is automatically inferior to a living one, and most pvp card games had co-op formats to enjoy. Not to mention that players can only play as the rebel alliance. It seems too many sacrifices for gaining just solo play. I also can't help but think that experimenting with decks would be more fun if you didn't know what your opponent was doing every single time. A game of football can't be much fun if one team has the other's playbook. Part of the enjoyment is in the challenge. Also, I don't quite get what you meant by this "A monthly pack that you will play a few times will be fun for awhile but too expensive to keep up with compared to the potential metagame of a PvP." Would you mind clarifying slightly?
  7. Avalanche said: But for others like me who's friends are not into card games, or that don't care to go to play in tournaments at the game store the cooperative mode with a solo option is nice. Another good reason is that I actually can get my wife to play Lord of the Rings with me because she can be on my team, so i'm sure it would work with Star Wars as well. There are cooperative formats for most PvP games. Try them out, your wife may just enjoy them. I got my sister into Magic in the same fashion. A good game store should actually have non-tournament play nights for any game with a decent following, or just open gaming nights. I got to my local most Tuesdays for just that reason. Check out the game stores in your area. If they don't do such a thing you could always talk to the owner about starting one up!
  8. Or you could have the option to play as something other than the rebels, and then make bounty hunters neutral.
  9. borithan said: Many of the things you mention are exactly the reason why some people don't like traditional CCGs. You cannot draft or play sealed as every set comes with the same stuff (which is a consequence of it being a Living Card Game, not because it is cooperative). The constantly evolving meta game? Not sure what you mean exactly, but new packs will result in new things in game, while the fact that every "adventure" set will come with all the cards in the set will mean that everyone can keep up, not just those that can afford the time and money to go out and find the required cards to make uber decks. Ok, in a co-op set up uber decks are a bit pointless, but people can easily keep up if they want to, unlike "cardboard crack" of its various forms. As for AI being fixed: probably not. Yes, you may have the same cards facing you, but the different order they get played in can result in very different games (and if done properly the "AI" will react to your actions, so as you change what you do it will change what it does). At the same time, they are going to be releasing new "adventure" boxes regularly, which will not only include new cards for the players but new cards and set up instructions for the "AI" resulting in different games. And truthfully I don't think FFG is aiming at the idea of competative tournaments for this. They are probably aiming at the many (probably majority of) gamers (and non-gamers) who almost entirely just play with their mates, or maybe a friendly gaming club. Tournaments, keeping up with the metagame, and limited play aren't forced on anyone as I recall. So what exactly is gained by removing the option? Nothing. Don't cut off your nose to spite your face. You very well can play draft or sealed. Cube drafts are great fun. I also imagine FFG could find a way to revise the core set packaging to allow for additional forms of limited play. I may be mistaken but I remember W:I having some form of alternative limited play right? Purely cooperative play is a detriment to limited play. Who else will be taking cards from the pool? Your teammates. This removes large elements of the strategy and fun in the format. I won't pick a card purely to stop my teammate from having it, and an AI can't pick cards for itself to begin with. I never said I wanted "cardboard crack" or booster packs or anything of the sort. I firmly believe that an LCG type format will be the future of card games. The old format can't really compete these days which is why only the few biggest games of that sort have survived. Much like MMORPGs dropping their subscription fees, card games will shed purely randomized packaging. However, we should also try to preserve the few good things the old ways spawned. Such as limited play. I have severe doubts that an automated AI opponent represented by text on randomized cardboard can be a match for anything close to a competent opponent. Lets say they can magically make it react or adapt. How will they make it bluff? A flesh and blood opponent will always be better. I'm not against the option for an AI opponent, but it need not be the only choice. By making it the only choice nothing is gained and much is lost. I know people are speculating, but it is just baseless speculation. It does not speak for FFG's intentions or what is necessarily possible/worthwhile within the rules. I'm not saying I know more or better, simply that the speculation shouldn't only go in a single direction. One has to consider possible faults and downsides to an idea just as much as beneficial possibilities. Yes, new cards for the AI opponent will be released. I am well aware of that. However, when they come out you may simply look at them, look at the new player cards, and adapt your deck as needed. The AI will not find a new way to use a card 3 months after it is released, opposing players will. The AI will not show up to a tournament with a strategy you didn't know existed, opposing players will. The AI will not come back to the next game with an improved/new stratgey after you trounce it, opposing players will. This is what I mean by an ever evolving metagame. A player's strategy can't always be predicted, but to be successful against them you will have to try. The AI will never understand what the predominant strategies are and adapt to fight them before the game ever begins. A living breathing opponent will.
  10. spirit said: Scolec, you just sound like you're winging now. No you can't get sealed deck tournaments. Ho-hum I guess I'll just have to deal with that but seeing as both AGoT and CoC seem to manage happily without those I guess it'll manage. Who knows how a tournament scene will work. It's early days and I wouldn't count the chickens just yet. It's Co-op. And? I suspect a lot of the disgruntlement about this is only because the previous LCG was Co-op as well and there is a definite theme of Co-op from FFG at the moment but that said it hasn't ever been done in a Star Wars game before. And this is still only the second *to my knowledge anyway* Co-op collectible card game made so we're finally getting a new type of game that will be fresh to pretty much anyone who plays it. If that's not for you then fine but don't troll the forums of a game you've stated yourself you have no interest in. I don't want a rehash of the Decipher game. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. Why am I automatically whining or trolling? Because I disagree with your opinion? I was looking forward to an FFG Star Wars game from the moment I heard Wizards was losing the license. I'm simply not excited for the path they seem to be taking. As a fan and customer I can potentially change the direction they take with this game by giving feedback. Why not try? For all I know my worries for the game's path could be incorrect, but I won't know if I don't get involved. Where do I say I want Decipher's game back? I said I want to be able to play against other people and play as dark side. That is far from wanting the same game. I only brought up Decipher's game because many people were suggesting it as if it were a viable alternative. That was not exactly true, and I felt people should be informed. Sorry if discussing that game caused any confusion as to my intentions. Where did I express a total lack of interest? Don't put words in my mouth. I said it didn't seem like a good idea for an LCG. If it plays well I will still buy the core as a stand alone game. The LCG core sets have always played well out of the box, and run at a similar price point to stand alone games. You can play limited without being in a tournament. For example, cube drafts. AGoT and CoC do manage without. However, I think they would be better for having those formats, and I don't think it would be too hard to introduce limited formats to LCGs. Sealed and draft are a ton of fun, even when not opening a single new card. Tournaments really wouldn't have many ways to work. Who beats the AI quicker or by a wider margin? I read the play summary from GenCon on the forums before I made that post. I hope I'm wrong, but there don't seem to be many options. No, the LotR LCG has nothing to do with my opinion. I've never played it, or even looked into it. I never really enjoyed the previous LotR card games, and I'm already playing too many card games as is lol. Co-op may be fresh, but change for the sake of change isn't always good. You can play co-op in most PvP card games without much difficulty. So why give up anything to make a game purely co-op? Just doesn't make sense from my perspective. Co-op and PvP in card games are not mutually exclusive so why force them to be? I'd rather play an opponent who can think, react, and adapt. Whether or not there are other players on my team doesn't change that.
  11. PadmeSkywalker said: I'm really happy that it is a cooperative game. I know a lot of people will compare this to Decipher's game. But if that is the case, why not just keep on playing Decipher's Star Wars CCG? Having this not be PvP will be a nice spin. Decipher's Star Wars game has been out of print for over a decade. You can't go to the local game shop and buy a few packs before you play in the weekly tournament. Because stores don't have the cards, and there aren't many tournaments (certainly not local ones either). According to the official website my state hasn't had a tournament in over two months. Cards that have been out of print for over a decade are generally hard to find and therefore expensive. Reflections 2 runs at ~$240 a box, and is far from the hardest set to find. Granted there are several early sets that are readily available, but prices are no lower than any current card game. Also, most of a modern competitive deck will come from the rarer and more expensive sets. The "new" cards are fan made and are released sporadically in small bunches. 11 years has produced ~1000 cards. An LCG would have put out that many new cards in under 4 years. TLDR: The old Decipher Star Wars game isn't a viable option for most people, and really can't compete with a fully supported card game. ----------- A purely cooperative lcg/tcg/ccg just does not seem like a good idea. Couldn't a board game or stand alone card game produce the same results? Meanwhile, this approach sacrifices many of the great things about these games. How can there be tournaments? How can there be draft or sealed play? How can there be a constantly evolving meta game? What would you do if your lgs has a Star Wars LCG night? Pair off and play against the same "AI" you've played against every game ever? YAWN, don't sign me up. There will always be a fixed array of strategies the "AI" can run against you. Also, "PvP" card games can support cooperative play. MtG has many cooperative formats like Two Headed Giant and Emperor, and even tournaments for them. Admittedly such tournaments are rare, but if FFG wanted a cooperative game they could make it the main tournament format Why needlessly give up so much (especially getting to play as Dark Side!) for a rather limited "AI" opponent?
  12. I'd say we can expect Brettonia, Vampire Counts, Lizzies, Skaven, and Wood Elves. Daemons and Beasts will likely just be folded into the Chaos faction to save space (they have been one army at various points). Less popular armies like Tomb Kings, Ogre Kingdoms, and Chaos Dwarves (though they may get some spots in Chaos) may never show up.
  13. Definitely looking forward to this game big time. However, is it just me or does the packaging seem a little odd? You are going to end up with 9 of some cards to get three of others, why not just make it 3 of each card for $15. (Yes its the same price per card, and it puts you at the same monthly price as an MMO) The starter set seems ok, but I wish it was packaged in a friendlier manner towards getting copies 2 and 3 of cards. I'd rather not have 3 huge boardgame boxes and 2 extra sets of tokens lying around, let alone be paying for them. Perhaps 2 player starter sets without all the extra stuff and 2 copies each of half the cards? (Maybe packaged in some cool deck carrier type box if we are luck?)
  14. Got your pm. Probably can't make it out on Teusday. Wish I could have made it out last Monday, but I was insanely tired. Got out of a 14 hour shift at 8am rofl. I assume from the date in the PM you guys run bi-weekly? If so I should definitly be out there for the 8th. Thansk again for the info etc.
  15. Thanks for the info, I may stop by this afternoon.
  • Create New...