Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About KEM

  • Rank

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    Burtonsville, Maryland, United States
  1. 1) Of those five, only 3 were designed from the get-go to support multi-player (GoT, LotR and Star Wars). Of those three, one is Co-op, one features "traditional" PvP multi-player and the other only has limited multi-player available only via an expansion. The other two games (CoC and W:I) are two-player games with tacked-on multi-player much after the fact. As an aside, I didn't even realize CoC even had official multi-player, the only multi-player I have heard about for CoC were un-official variants. If so, that's good to know. 2)Of the last three LCG's released, two are two-player only. The other didn't support multi-player until sometime after it's launch. That is something of a trend. All I am saying is it would be nice to see some more variety. I am sorry if you think I am picking on tournaments and/or tournament players, that certainly is not my intention. I certainly agree that two-player only games can be played casually. Heck I can think of two "casual" board games that are two-player only off the top of my head ("Hive" and "All Creatures Great and Small"). But the thing is that while every gaming group is different, the groups that I am and have been a part of view gaming as a social experience. We are there because we want to play together. As such two-player only games rarely get played, because we are there to play together not split off into groups of two. As as consequence I tend to look upon the ability to handle multi-player to be a little more than just "a plus".
  2. I could go for a co-op LCG, but I would say at the very least they need a multi-player LCG. If they keep releasing two-player only games they are pretty much going to be relegating LCG's to tournament players only. I would also go for a Steampunk LCG, I would even suggest Girl Genius.
  3. KEM

    Android rpg?

    I was playing the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game a few weeks ago and got to think that that kind of game could translate pretty well to game universe like Android. While not strictly an RPG, it has some of the trappings of an RPG and has a great potential to recreate some of the story-telling aspects of Android. I would imagine a game with decks for each of the characters, which could be altered from game to game over a campaign depending on decisions/outcomes from each game. Each game could be about investigating a particular crime or other event that fits into an overall conspiracy. So it could be like a game of Android, but broken into a series of individual scenarios that could be played out of a longer period of time. That's my thought, anyway. I figured this was the most appropriate place to bring it up.
  4. dbmeboy said: Your friend was right. The deploy phase is a player action window. The only difference from other action windows is that the active player may play units and enhancements as an action (which you obviously cannot do during the other action windows). Thanks for the clarification. That makes sense. I think I was a little thrown by the fact that my deck was effectively shut down in the first turn by a single 1-cost event. But then it seems that the real lesson to take away from this is that Fleet Command Center is an exceptionally fragile card that should only be played if you can protect it, or if your opponent is completely exhausted. Some of these lessons you just got to learn the hard way.
  5. I need a clarification here, because the rules aren't absolutely clear on this. Is the Deployment Phase an "Action Window"? The issue comes up because in the Timing Structure diagram on pages 30-31 of the rulebuook, the Deployment Phase is listed with a blue "Player Actions" bar, my friend insisted that meant it was an Action Window. I pointed out that the blue "Player Actions" bar in the Deployment Phase specifically lists what actions you can do, ie. the active player plays cards from his hand. But because it doesn't say specically anywhere in the rulebook (that we could see anyway) that only the active player can perform actions, and that it was a blue "Player Actions" bar that meant it was an action window. We ended up playing it as an Action Window, but I do not think that is right. Particularly considering that I played Fleet Command Center and then he just played as his action Tear This Ship Apart. That pretty much ended the game right there on the spot. We kept playin, but really I had no hope of ever overcoming a 6 resource swing like that. I think he should not have been able to play Tear This Ship Apart until the Conflict or Force Phase, which would have still hurt of course, but wouldn't have been as devastating as losing it before I could even use it's resources.
  6. dboeren said: KEM said: The current situation really isn't tenable, to be honest. I mean, imagine if you bought a board game and there weren't enough components to play the complete game. You ask what the deal is and everyone tells you, "duh, you're supposed to buy a second copy of the game". You'd look at them as if they were nuts. So why exactly is that acceptable for LCGs? Especially when I don't every recall seeing anything on any LCG core set explaining that it is only an introductory set and only contains part of the game. If there is and I've missed it, fair enough. At least with a Basic set and an Advanced set customers will know exactly what they are getting. There is no such thing as "the whole game". That's the entire point of an LCG, more cards keep coming out and it just keeps going. Therefore, the Core set cannot contain "the whole game" because it doesn't exist. However, it does contain everything you need to play, unlike your straw man half-a-boardgame example. Sure the core set gives you everything you need to play, as long as you don't consider deck-building to be a significant part of the LCG. If you do want to build decks, then you're going to find that the core set is short of many of the key cards you'll need. The only way to get those cards currently is to buy a duplicate copy of the game you just bought. Expansions don't have much of anything to do with that problem. I should probably be a bit clearer though that I'm not accusing Fantasy Flight of any shenanigans. My last post came off a bit more accusatory than I intended and for that I apologize. LCGs are a pretty new concept and Fantasy Flight has been doing their best to try and figure out how to make and market this type of game. Fantasy Flight already addressed a similar issue with regards to the expansion packs when they switched from the 40-card packs to the 60-card packs. That was simply part of the growing pains of sorting out this whole new game type. The 60-card packs are great improvement on the format and Fantasy Flight deserve much kudos for that. At the end of the day all I'm really saying is that the core sets are just another issue that Fantasy Flight are going to have to sort out. They've done it before, they can do it again.
  7. dboeren said: I wouldn't say I dislike all multiplayer, just that there are potential issues in multiplayer games, but they can also be avoided in the design. One of the reasons I've been interested in V:TES is because they include limits on who can attack who which specifically prevents gang-up scenarios. Boardgames usually handle it by focusing on other things besides directly attacking people - more like a race to build something or whatever and interaction is more limited to things like blocking, trading, or competition for resources. While I agree that multiplayer tends to work best when the game is not based on elimination, I'm beginning to suspect that game design is not the real issue here. In all my years of playing multiplayer in games like Magic and WoT TCG I've never seen 'gang-up scenarios' as a significant issue. I'd say the only times I have seen anything like a 'gang-up scenario' is generally the result of someone 'playing the player' rather than just playing the game. If you are 'playing the player', 'gang-up scenarios' make some sense as you're taking out the player who is the biggest threat. If you're just playing the game, ganging-up is less likely as you are more concerned with what's on the playfield than anything else. So if you're a big threat on the board, yeah people are going to gang up on you. If you can't stand up to that then you have no business suggesting that you're the 'best player' on the board. It sounds to me like you and your playgroup are more focused on tournament-style, finding out who's the best player. What you have to understand is that for many gamers the purpose of gaming isn't to find out who's the best. The reason we game is simply for the joy we find in the activity itself. This isn't to say that we aren't playing to win, of course. Since the goal of pretty much every game out there is to win, if you're not trying to achieve that goal you really aren't playing the game are you. Now I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the way you all play. I just think you should understand that there are plenty of hardcore gamers out there who don't play anything like the way you all play, and these gamers would be very well served by having multiplayer as an option.
  8. Kiwamu said: Toqtamish said: Kiwamu said: I consider it the necessary evil. FFG is a company that wants to earn money. Selling at least a second core set is a huge boon to them. This part is not exactly true as with that second core set comes all of the other bits that cost them money, the box, the tokens, rulebook etc. They probably don't really make that much extra money off of another core set purchase. I have to disagree in a kindly way. They probably get more discount for ordering a bigger stock to be produced. If they had to splitt, the discounts wouldn't be as high or wouldn't apply. Sure you now could say, they just have to print out the cards, but I guess they would require a second packaging etc. Also marketing would be HELL! Imagine the game and the complement pack at the same retailer, at the same shelf, the casual player that just buys it because STAR WARS, or A GAME OF THRONES would be immeadeatily put off to see that one of the purchases wouldn't give him all the cards. Howeve if there is only the core set to display, than he would grab it and present the newest FRANCHISE game to his beloved ones and cries out in joy if he draw his favourite franchise character. Last but not least, if they wouldn't benefit in the sale, why bother to sell the first core set in the first place and reprinting it? So they would probably loose out on the discounts AND the impulse purchases. I don't see how the marketing would be hell at all. Just keep the "core" sets that way that they are and call them what they really are: Introductory sets or Basic sets. Then you make another set called the Advanced set, and indicate clearly on the box that you need the Basic set to play. Fantasy Flight still gets to sell two copies of the game, and the customer is more accurately informed as to what they are getting into. The basic sets would be pretty much what they are now, fully playable sets that give you the flavor and feel for the game. For some people that could be all they need. The people who really want to get into the game can buy the advanced set and open up the possibilities of desk design and what not. The current situation really isn't tenable, to be honest. I mean, imagine if you bought a board game and there weren't enough components to play the complete game. You ask what the deal is and everyone tells you, "duh, you're supposed to buy a second copy of the game". You'd look at them as if they were nuts. So why exactly is that acceptable for LCGs? Especially when I don't every recall seeing anything on any LCG core set explaining that it is only an introductory set and only contains part of the game. If there is and I've missed it, fair enough. At least with a Basic set and an Advanced set customers will know exactly what they are getting.
  9. dboeren said: I never played the Babylon 5 CCG. I was a fan of the show though, so I wouldn't mind trying the game sometime just to see what it was like. If the skills of the 2p game don't carry over to the multiplayer game, then I think it's reasonable to consider them significantly different games - so it should be possible to like one and not the other. As a bit of background explanation, I haven't played any multiplayer CCGs/LCGs - I'm mainly drawing on my experience with multiplayer tabletop minis games. You can be the best player and still lose almost every game if both your opponents form a truce and only attack you until you're eliminated. Or if one player simply hides until both opponents are weakened from fighting each other. etc… That's the sort of experience I generally seek to avoid. You like what you like, dude. I'm not saying you're wrong for not liking multiplayer, I'm saying you particular bias against multiplayer isn't a credible enough reason for a game not to accomodate it. Also, I said the skills and tactics of two-player don't always translate into multi-player, not that there's a significant difference between the two, certainly not to the degree that they are two different games. The strategies may differ a bit, but not the basics of the game. Also I have played both multiplayer and two-player CCG/LCGs and they both have their strengths and weaknesses depending on the game. From the sound of your gaming experiences I think you need to find better opponents (ie. ones that will play the game rather playing the people) or find games that aren't focused on elimination. Actually my general experience is that games that don't focus on elimination tend to be better for multiplayer, but that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
  10. dboeren said: KEM said: Personally I never dug that whole V:TES 'ring'-thing, but I've never had a problem with the politics and the push-pull of a full-on, well designed multiplayer game. Yeah, I'm just not a politics sort of guy I feel like if I want to play a game of LCG-X then I want to play LCG-X, not play a negotiation game with a little bit of LCG-X going on in the background. Also, I like the best player to usually win and too often in multiplayer games that allow unlimited attacking of other players that doesn't happen as people will gang up on the perceived threat of the strong players. The thing is that negotiation is something that was always a part of the game, it's just brought out more when you have multiple opponents rather than just one. Multiplayer cannot just be 'tacked on', it can only bring out elements that are inside the game already. That's why you couldn't really have a 'PvP'-style multiplayer in a game like Netrunner or Star Wars, that element just isn't in the game as it stands. 'Raid'-style multiplayer however is perfectly compatible with both games, you could reasonably argue that they are currently two-player raids as it stands. It kind of reminds of the videogame Stanglehold that came out a while back. They tried to put in a PvP multiplay in a game with bullet-time and it just did not work. It was released before 'Horde-mode' co-op multiplayer became popular, which is a shame because that would have been a much more appropriate type of multiplayer for this game. As for the best player winning, if you can't deal with multiple threats at the same time you are not the 'best player' in multiplayer. As such it is completely inaccurate to suggest that the best player doesn't win in multiplayer. It's just that the skills and tactics of two-player don't always translate into multiplayer.
  11. Toqtamish said: We already know that Star Wars is getting raid style rules in The Balance of the Force expansion. 2-3 LS against 1 DS. Thanks for the info, I'll have to keep an eye out for that.
  12. dboeren said: Yeah, a raid style game is a different story, and avoids most of the negative points of pvp multiplayer. Of course, there are also other ways of getting around it such as rules that limit who you can attack like they did in V:TES. What it does do is create an asymmetry though. Will it be viewed as more fun to play the juggernaut side versus being one of several "normal" players? Some of the fan-proposed Netrunner multiplayer variants effectively ask the Runners to take fewer turns: Corp, Player1, Corp, Player2, Corp, Player3, … Frankly it doesn't sound like the Runners would have fun with that as they're only doing 1/3rd as much stuff as a normal game. Or do you avoid that by making it a player vs. environment raid which is effectively what Lord of the Rings is? Personally I never dug that whole V:TES 'ring'-thing, but I've never had a problem with the politics and the push-pull of a full-on, well designed multiplayer game. As far as asymmetry goes, when idly thinking about a net-raid system my first thought was to have the runners effectively take their turn simultaneously from a shared pool of clicks. That preserves the symmetry and keeps everyone actively involved. Alternating back and forth between the Corp and the Runners seems to give the Corp way too many turns and makes it feel less like a co-operative raid and more like trying to play 2-3 games simultaneously. A PvE-style raid deck may be possible, some of the later WoW Raid decks and Dungeon decks are set up to run that way. I can't help but feel though that it would just be better with a live Corp player, though.
  13. dboeren said: KEM said: In my experience casual play of CCG/LCG's is primarily multiplayer. It's certainly not exclusively multiplayer, obviously, but if you have a group of 3 or more people they are generally going to want to play all together. So if a game is unable to accomodate that, it simply isn't going to be played. I certainly hope that's true, that may make Star Wars a viable game for me. Of course I'm really hoping they do something like that with Netrunner, 1 megacorp versus 2-3 runners. That would open up all sorts of interesting gameplay, as well as making it much likely that I'll even get a chance to play the game in the first place. This hasn't been my experience at all with LCG's. If there are more people, then we have multiple games going. Multiplayer is (to me) more of a boardgame thing. This is a dual, a game where you are clashing head to head with other players. In that type of game having multiple people tends to destroy the strategy as the game quickly becomes more about ganging up on people and the meta-game of who will or won't attach each other. Competitive players hate this. Casual players may not, but they'd still be better off playing a game that was designed for multiplayer - typically one where players are less able to directly attach each other so you have some chance to implement a strategy. I don't doubt that's the case at the moment as the majority of LCG's at the moment are restricted to two-player. The only LCG's I personally have played are AGOT and LotR. I've played Cthulhu in the past, although I should point out that was with a multi-player variant. Plus I'm also thinking of all the magic players I see at my FLGS's game night, who are primarily playing multiplayer. So that's my experience, your milage will of course vary. But I think you're confusing a few things about the type of multiplayer we're talking about and it's potential impact on the current play enviornment. Despite the title of this thread, the type multiplayer the Evazorak and I are talking about is a 'raid-style' multiplayer, not the 'PvP' multiplayer that you are describing. I think it's been pretty well established that a 'PvP' multiplayer couldn't even work in a game like Netrunner, and there is no reason to believe it would work in Star Wars for most of the same reasons. 'Raid-style' multiplayer on the other hand would fit in perfectly since it is based on a lot of the same basic principles as the 'traditional' two-player game. Another important thing to keep in mind is that 'raid-style' multiplayer would be additiive to the game, it would not in any way, shape or form alter or change the traditional two-player format. So you're play group could continue to play the game the way you've always played it. But now other groups can come together and play the game in this new format, or your group could decide to take a break and give this raid-thing a try. I've experienced this myself in the WoT TCG community which had/has a vibrant and very competitive tournament scene. Running concurrantly with that there was/is a very active Raid community. One does not have to limit or restrict the other. While the players may overlap, the formats never do. There are no Raid Tournaments, for example. I hope that clarifys things.
  14. Evazorek said: I think card games, especially ones which wish to have a competitive enviroment need to be designed inherently for a 1v1 game situation. However, after playing star wars and also my experience with AGoT and TCG's like wow and magic, multiplayer formats are a great way to mix it up and add some fresh play ideas to a game.
  15. Toqtamish said: $120 is still way cheaper than any TCG out there to get a full playset in. And you don't need playsets of every card in any of the LCG's. AGoT it is kinda pointless as once a character is dead you can't play another copy. Netrunner has like 11 cards that come in singles. I have two core sets now and don't really see a need for a third to get 11 cards. Maybe eventually to get some demo decks. Good point, I wasn't as clear as I should have been on that and I ended up conflating some issues. I think for a more casual player the issue would be more about being able to build a couple of functional decks and less about having a full play set. I don't own Netrunner so I can't speak to that, but I do know that with the AGoT core set you are not able to build even one functional 60-card deck. To build a functional deck requires a core set and at least one expansion, which comes out to about $70 retail. Compare that to a TCG like Magic or WoW where you can get an Intro/Class Deck for $12-$15. So for the price of one core set which won't even let me build one deck, I could buy 3 decks for a TCG. That's more what I mean as far as LCG's having a high barrier for entry for a more casual player.
  • Create New...