Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About TrooperShark99

  • Rank

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    Poughquag, New York, United States
  1. Firstly, we don't have the rest of the Force Cycle. We've been told that the cycle is playtested as a unit. Possibly with the entire cycle in play, The False Report/Against All Odds decks successfully reduced the dominance of Sith Control in the playtest environment, but there were other LS decks that matched up well with the DS decks that rose to pick up Sith Control's slack, so the deck wasn't as completely centralizing in the playtest environment as it turned out to be in the wild. Secondly, we've been told the packs are organized for release after the playtesting process is complete. So we really can't blame the people who playtested the cycle for this, at all. Finally, Sith Control has been the deck to beat since the Core Set release. Not even the S&S Unblockable deck that everyone was complaning about a few months ago was enough to knock it from that spot. If, in playtesting, The False Report/Against All Odds decks were able to punish the Sith Control decks enough to break their metagame dominance, why wouldn't they want to make sure the deck had its components as quickly as possible, especially with a tournament season coming up? Unfortunately, FFG miscalculated how viable the counters to the deck were, and the deck became even more of a centralizing force in the metagame than Sith Control was before it. No, this didn't "slip by" the playtesters. No, FFG did not blindly send these out there not knowing what they had unleashed upon the game. It was (appropriately enough) a gamble that the deck would shake up the metagame during the competitive season. And it did, just not in the way FFG wanted it to. I'd rather think they did blindly send these out there then the alternative, which is the knowingly said lets create this significantly OP and NPE deck that we'll need to fix a month after we release it. There is no in between, they either saw in playtesting this was broken and let it happen, or they did not see it at all. If they playtest the entire cycle, not the sequence of release, then that is a flaw in the process they run, because it implies they are willing to have the meta suck for anywhere between one to five months. The fact that they "miscalculated" what this deck would do to the meta is what demonstrates they don't have a solid process, the individual playtesters are not the problem necessarily, I have no insight into the process FFG runs, my point is that the simple fact that the meta was allowed to be what it was between yesterday and 5 weeks ago, in the middle of the store champs and start of regional season, outlines they have significant issues in the end to end QA process
  2. Please read this: http://www.cardgamedb.com/forums/index.php?/topic/16108-for-all-the-haters/ Myself, I think that Freeholders were good design to counter the perceived sith dominance. As TGO said, sometimes you have to push the limits. FFG just got a little over the top with Holding All the Cards. Even Wizards of the Coast did not see the monster coming their affinity mechanic would create when the Mirrodin block was released. And you would think they do a lot of playtesting. An solution has been implemented. So please stop complaining now and go play the game. It's great. Just a few minutes ago, I gave the Sith a serious beating with a pure Jedi deck running Moldy Crow proxies and Jedi Mind Tricks. I really like what the designers of this game are doing. Free Holders is a good design, and a good answer to Sith, Holding the cards as a two of is the problem, and every card game had things escape playtesting at some point, but this is so obvious that I maintain the not catching that is very worrysome. Like I said, I'll start playing the game again, cause it will be fun again now that the silliness is stopped via a restricted list, and I am fine with the solution, but there is no way anyone is going to convince me they have anything close to a robust Q&A process if this made it through in back to back packs, I don't consider myself good at this game, and it took me 5 seconds to build that deck once I saw the cards
  3. The fact that they needed to do this (and they needed to do it, the game was insanely terrible right now) is a huge problem and leaves me very concerned about there ability to design cards in the long run. These objective sets are in back to back pack, and it's not some unbelievable combo, the interraction is so obvious and over the top it's ridiculous, how any playtester did not build this deck first and realize how OP and NPE it is is beyond me, and gents, playtesting gets harder with a larger card pool, not easier, if they missed this in back to back packs, they don't have a playtesting process at all
  4. Hard to tell that much in advance, Sunday mornings are usually not bad for me
  5. MJA, unless you want extra copies of cards to avoid swapping cards in and out of decks, there is not competitive reason what so ever to get a second copy of a chapter pack. One chapter pack will provide the maximum of cards you can put for a legal tournament deck for all of the cards included in the pack. I know where you are coming from, I have a CCG background as well (and played Competitive Magic for years), that is what makes the LCG model so attractive.
  6. You can play on-live using OCTGN, I have played several games and it's pretty well done, the mechanics take a few turns to get used to, but not too bad. I would prefer if there was less automation to force learning on players ofr triggers, but it's well done, and you can usually find an opponent in a reasonable amount of time. Other then playing both hands, which works fine but bluffing yourself in edge battles might be difficult, not sure how solo can work here…
  7. Netrunner is not a good compare on flavor, because we have no framework in our minds of what flavor should be, it is not a "licensed" product from a large existing and defined environment, so the game and the cards define the environment and the flavor. LOTR being a coop game where really the encounter deck defines the flow of the game is also a poor compare to a PVP game like Star Wars in terms of flavor because it's simply easier to convey flow when you define the path of the adventure and the composition of the entire deck of the foe. Thrones however is a very good compare, both have exhaustive source material that players will be familiar with. When I look at the flavor / theme feel, I look at the mechanics more then individual card interrations, you can find situations that make no sense on individual card interrations in any licensed game. Carrion birds wipe out armies all of the time, someone won worlds by training our favorite drunken king to be a Maester,… In Thrones, the mechanics and structure of the game really feel like the struggle for the Throne we see in the book, battling, intrigue and Power struggles, the Dominance phase adds to that, this game is very thematic, all over the place, from a mechanics perspective. The plot deck is an accessorie that helps this as well, love the game. I don't feel like SWLCG lacks theme from a mechanics perspective, I do however agree that it is no where near the level of Thrones on that front, when comparing Core set to Core set, the house mechanics and strenghts come out more in Thrones with more flavor in my opinion. Comparing Thrones as it is now, with a very large card pool, to the SWLCG core set is an incomplete assessment in my books, already the previews for the Hoth cycle hooze with flavor at least from what I've seen, so we'll see in 3 years. At this point, my concern for the long run with SWLCG (and I really like the game) are not with flavor / theme, but with interaction. I really like how the mechanics put the LS against the clock from a theme perspective, but the few PVP games that have attempted that before have not done that well, it is a very difficult mechanic to balance because it essentially rewards one player for stacking up defences and doing absolutely nothing else, which can certainly lead to boring games (ie it can lead to forcing DS to playing control and forcing LS to play agro if not balanced properly). I also at least partially agree with point 2 in the original post, it still feels like the main characters in the storyline are not resilient enough, and Yoda, the example used above, is the biggest issues of course because he has 2 hit points / lives. There is a big difference between 2 and 3 in this game on that stat, a single force choke with Vader on table can take out any 2 hit point character, targeted strike will often do it, Heat of Battle with a wiener,…, 3 is much harder to take out. It just feels like Yoda should be 3, he's really by far the worse offender on that stat in my book but if does feel to me like there should be a bigger gap between the main characters and the soldiers on that stat. My issue with this is somewhat tempered by the fact that those guys don't 'die" in this game, they just leave the board and can comeback.
  8. Looks like CSI got this in stock because my pre-order was updated to ready to ship with a Fedex tracking number, looks like I'll be able to get a few games in with my son during the Christmas break afterall, awsome !
  9. I don't know if I'll like this or not from a deck building perspective, I suspect I won't until the card pool is reasonably large. I do however see where it brings a "different" challenge even to experienced CCG / LCGers. Deck building is fundamentally about card evaluation in context. Evaluating the relative power and synergy of a given card relative to other choices in the card pool with what you are trying to do, that is why you end up with allot of 3-4 of's because the optimal choice tends to be just that, the optimal choice. Evaluating groups of cards for relative power and synergy is something that presents a completely different challenge. Add to that the need to balance resources / factions / life points from the objectives, I can see the point of each decision you make being more complex and critical vs an individual card choice. I am not saying this is overall more of a challenge or better, but it is fundamentally different then each other LCG / CCG out there, which I think is at least in part the point here. I always thought Pod building was an interesting dynamic for a game like this, from the first bits of info I got on the game, my concerns were / are still about the ability for characters to battle capital starships as an example, it seems to be like something that could have been rather easily avoided from a design standpoint, and it appears to me like an attempt to simplify the game to appeal to a broader audience. Honestly, I don't see a broader audience getting into something like an LCG for the long run, so I hope the mechanics hold up for the more core gamers…
  10. Good post Zach (and on Team Covenant as well), I play many CCG's, played SWCCG very competitively for years, even after Decipher lost the license, and it's still my favorite CCG of all time. I have some worries about the new game, but the deck building "limitation" is not one of them. I really do enjoy tweaking decks down to the card level in most games I play, and I believe that makes a difference between winning and loosing. What FFG is proposing here does not remove that aspect (once you get to a large enough pool of objectives), it just makes it different. Card evaluation is such a critical asset in deck building, not just card evaluation purely on it's own merit, but in the context of the deck you are building, the synergies and purpose of the deck and the meta you expect. Having to do that with a group of cards I would contend is even more complex and introduces trade-off's that you just don't see on a one by one basis. I for one am looking forward to working through this balancing act. It just introduces new variables into the equation, and is something different.
  11. It has been 6 months since Lions of the Rock released, anyone have an uncensored file for OCTGN ?
  12. SWCCG is the best CCG / LCG game ever made in my opinion. It was great, the Prequel material Decipher released quickly when they knew they were loosing the license was very unbalanced, the PC fixed it and then they screwed it up with a redux that was not required nor desired by a majority of the players, which is when I stopped playing. What made SWCCG so great was that every single decision you took in deck building and playing / timing at multiple trade-offs: You could use high force icon locations to fuel your resource engine, but it exposed you to high drain potential and multiple 0 destiny cards in your deck. You could play with the most powerfull characters and ships, but it meant (before the late stuff anyway) your destiny was going to be lower. You could play with smaller characters (swarm type deck) but it exposed you getting beat down in one location for massive overflow. You could focus on one arena (ground vs space) or strike for balance The list goes on, The simplicity and elegance of using the reserve deck for resources added a tremendous amount of skill to the game (deciding how much to activate / use when, especially late, tracking, force loss = resources lost,…). The fundamental design was very good, the complexity was not that bad, it was mostly driven, from my perspective, by a huge card pool with no rotation, the mechanics themselves were not that complex. The design was good in cube, limited and of course constructed, the theme and source material of course is awesome, community was also great. I really love AGOT right now, but SWCCG is still my # 1 CCG.
  • Create New...