Grimwalker

Members
  • Content count

    1,538
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Grimwalker

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    61701, Illinois, United States
  1. After the Core Set, probably the best bang for your buck is the Terminal Directive box. if you still like it, you could pick up a deluxe set and start picking up data packs as they come out. By that time you'll have a better idea of what you like and that will help you make choices as to what to consider picking from older Data Packs.
  2. if it's the site that Alsciende, designer of NetrunnerDB and ThronesDB, is working on, I think you are all in for a treat.
  3. The problem with that model is that if you sell 120x3 cards for $90 you will sell fewer units than if you chop it into six pieces for $15. Like I said early on in the thread, price points are a thing that exists, economically speaking. it's why I called his proposal for $15 60x1 packs quarterly a terrible idea: you're basically asking for people to spend $45 every three months rather than $15 every month, because even that is going to make some people not participate. He has a fantasy where the stopgap measure of trading and drafting will make up the difference for people who only want to spend $15 or $30 when these packs drop, but it's a delusion.
  4. This is really what it comes down to. This is a solution in search of a problem and in order to justify itself it makes the game collecting worse and deckbuilding harder in order to artificially create said problem. I get that drafting has an element of fun to it. But there are workarounds for that which don't mess up the structure.
  5. There is no way each player is not going to want three copies of, say, Gregor Clegane, The Hand's Judgment, or Nightmares. In Netrunner...Temujin Contract, IPO, Global Food Initiative, Jackson Howard. It's a terrible idea.
  6. The problem is your ideas don't do a single thing to address the metagame forces that create that solution. People buy product because if they don't they get their clock cleaned by people who own cards they don't, or because other product contains answers to the strongest decks. Yes, it is somewhat tough to buy in after the card pool is mature. What is not at all a solution is to make it harder to buy product, to make that product worth less, in order to satisfy a perverse desire for broken methods of card collection. It's not lost that your revised card count in quarterly packs mimics the core set. Do you know what people do? They buy multiple copies of the core set. That's all that people will do with your 60x1 packs, but you've made it harder to swing by making the purchases $45 every 3 months rather than $15 every month. Trading and drafting won't be able to close the gap. You can do what you want with your core set purchases but I can think of a dozen reasons right now that it will be a bad idea long term and you and your friends will come to regret it--no few of them all the different reasons they'll have to patch holes in their collections in order to compete, costing them more money than if they'd simply bought product for themselves. Thankfully your 60x1 idea is a pie-in-the-sky fantasy and anything resulting from it is completely imaginary. I don't at all deny that people get priced out of LCGs, or are discouraged from buying in by the need to accumulate everything. Hell, I bought into AGOT 1st Ed when it had 7 pack cycles out, 6 Deluxes, and its core set. I could never afford to just buy everything. So all I did was buy the Core Set, but new releases, then make targeted purchases from the back catalog. Over the next three years I did come to own most of the old cards but never everything. They are taking steps to rectify this. In Netrunner, the first two cycles will be gone in less than four months, and I wouldn't necessarily recommend people invest heavily in cycle 3 and 4, since they'll go in about a year and a half. That's really only a Core Set, two and a half current cycles, and the deluxe series--really not bad compared to having an extra $360 worth of product to stress over. FFG also just debuted an alternate "Cache Refresh" format: One Core Set, the Terminal Directive expansion, One Deluxe of your choice, and the two most recent pack cycles. That's an extremely modest card pool and it is quite friendly to new players just starting off.
  7. It makes me sad, though. I love AGOT and Netrunner, and he's going to ruin some people's experience with the game. They should do their draft, then put the core sets back together and buy product like normal people. They'll be better off than a couple of months down the road when Lannister or Targaryen comes out with a bomb card and they can't build a deck for it because they traded away big chunks of cards, then they realize that in order to play all that the game offers, they have to go back and buy what they missed, and now they're mad because it's more expensive than it had to be.
  8. "That material motivation" is because your terrible card distribution has made it more difficult than it has to be when they could simply acquire cards at retail price. Your whole idea rests on two premises: Drafting is a fun way to play Drafting is a viable way to collect cards. Therefore, LCGs would be better with drafting/trading. The only problem is that in an LCG, Premise #2 is false. You haven't acknowledged this, and you haven't provided a viable reason why it should be true. All of your insistence rests on #1 and you assume that #2 just goes hand in hand. The only reason trading and drafting is a viable way to collect cards is because CCGs are terrible, predatory business models that make people use sub-optimal workarounds to get the product they want, forcing them to make sacrifices and give up some cards and some lines of play because you simply can't have everything without spending vast sums of money. And, the only way your idea becomes viable is by also screwing up the product packaging, pricing, and timing, to make it bad, so that bad methods of collecting will be viable. I'm fine with drafting as a fun way to play, a card selection and deckbuilding challenge, but there are cubes for that. It is not worth making the rest of the game worse just to incorporate an unnecessary and undesirable collecting method.
  9. And they're going to have a hamstrung, lopsided collection for the rest of their tenure in the game, they'll eventually have to buy core sets separately, and they'll have you to thank for it. Good job! Go nuts.
  10. (This is the forum for the first edition, which is Out Of Print.)
  11. It's a terrible idea. Each individual faction has two in-faction cost reducer characters and there is no guarantee you'll get enough of a particular faction to work with them, there are exactly four copies of The Roseroad and The Kingsroad, which normally you'd run two or three of each per deck. All other cards except for a couple of Plots have exactly one copy per box. You're not going to be able to make any deck building decisions. All it basically does is divides up the box contents more or less randomly and expects people to shuffle up the resultant mess and play with it. The decks will be inefficient, brainless, inconsistent garbage. Whoever lucks into a bomb character and enough gold to marshal it is going to run away with games. You'd be far better off evenly distributing the resource cards and then picking factions in turn and you get all included cards of those factions. But then that's hardly a draft, is it? Bottom line, the core set was not designed for this and it's going to be a bad time. They actually sell Draft Packs for AGOT and that's going to be a much better time.
  12. The only way to draft out of a single core set would be to completely ignore standard deckbuilding rules. Moreover, the only way for two people to even play a game out of a single core set is to ignore standard deckbuilding rules. By default, in AGOT, you first pick your deck's faction, one of the great Houses or the Night's Watch. You may only include cards from that faction or are neutral in your deck. Additionally, you may play an Agenda, which is kind of like your ID ability in Netrunner. One suite of Agendas is the Banner option, where if you run Banner of the Stag you may include Baratheon cards on the assumption that they're allying with your main faction for political or strategic reasons. However, many cards are "Loyal" and can't be imported under a Banner agenda. For a single tournament legal deck out of one core set, you need to take all the cards of your primary faction, all the non-loyal cards out of a Banner faction, and almost all the Neutral cards in the box. This gives you a result with 1-2 cards of wiggle room, but not a whole lot of other meaningful decisions. There aren't enough cards in the box to repeat the process with two other factions. For multiple people to play out of a single box, you have to ignore both minimum deck size and loyalty restrictions. Two people pick two different factions, divide up the Neutral cards, and again, the deck is essentially defined going into it. To play with more than two people is basically not possible out of a single core set. If you were to try to get around this by waiving even faction considerations, the result would be a rainbow-warrior hodgepodge with no particular theme or synergy. A character that says "Kneel this card to reduce the cost of the next Stark character you play by 1" does you little good if you don't have many Stark characters, or if you did try and focus on Stark but Catelyn and Robb got hatedrafted away from you. You really need to let go of this irrational attachment to the Draft format. It's a fun deckbuilding challenge but in an LCG, it is not a good way to start a collection or to circumvent the basic product purchases. One reason why drafting out of a single core set is so epically bad is because by design it's a mile wide and a centimeter deep. Literally the only cards in it which aren't 1-per-box are basic resources and a couple of Neutral characters, and there's still not enough of those to go around. People will be hamstringing themselves if they start drafting and trading away important components of the collection. It's designed for each player to have their own. Preferably two, and probably three for serious competitive play.
  13. Trading and drafting are vastly inferior ways to onboard people. This is not an opinion, this is a mathematical and economic fact. They're only necessary, or at all beneficial, in an environment where variable rarity and blind distribution deprive customers of fair value for their purchases. That simply doesn't apply to LCGs Collections built by trading and drafting are necessarily incomplete and unpredictable, and incidentally unfair to those new players you're so concerned with: veteran players will have great advantages in understanding card evaluation and valuation which they'll bring to the bargaining table. And it's all unnecessary because the cards are available at retail, and your model guarantees reduced retail sales! It's bad for the game, it's bad for players, it's bad for deckbuilding, it's bad for design. Your idea is objectively terrible.
  14. There are such a things as price points. If you increase the price of something, you necessarily reduce demand, and moreover this is not a straight-line. The reason the product is priced at $15 once per month rather than $45 every three months is because you will sell more product at the former price point than you will at the latter. When I say your proposal is a terrible idea and I provide the reasons why I think that, it's just a waste of time for you to just re-describe your idea in different words. I understand what your proposal would entail just fine. The problem is it's based on premises that are wrong, and you have to address that. LCG players tend to own everything. If you release a pack every three months with 60x1 cards, then you're just forcing everyone to buy three copies. (Effectively $45 every 3 months.) Yes, it may be more of a meta shakeup if releases were more sporadic and impactful--this is the one and only aspect of your idea that's correct--but the practical effect is just to concentrate the cost of participation which will hurt sales. Trading and drafting are execrable mechanisms for making up the difference. The only reason they exist in CCG systems is because variable rarity and random distribution means that your ability to acquire cards you want is imperfect, and in turn you're forced to resort to other means to acquire compliments to the best pieces you happen to own. In doing so you forgo certain options as an opportunity cost to the decks you decide to pursue. None of that applies to a system where you do have perfect knowledge of pack contents and there is no variation in the frequency of distribution. Your proposal is simply a terrible idea in an LCG system.
  15. Yes. They leveraged two of the most powerful archetypes of their time. A few synergies may not be immediately obvious but there's no reason why you couldn't figure out most of how they tick. Not in tournaments. The "Most Wanted List" (cards that need reining in via deckbuilding constraints) has been updated after these decks were played and several powerful cards were selected for moderation. Moreover, big chunks of them are from Data Packs which will be rotating in about four months or so, and won't be legal at all in organized play. Honestly, as a stand-alone product, I wouldn't recommend them. Their purpose is basically to provide alternative versions of cards which are available in normal versions in various packs, and to commemorate the success at a particular time and place. I know last year when the 2015 Champion decks came out they also were obsolete as-printed due to MWL changes, and some people asked why they weren't tweaked to still be legal. Apparently the answer is "if they did that then they wouldn't be the championship decks." Commemorative fidelity won out. And as for the MWL...if you've got a list of cards that are unbalanced that's updated periodically, and your next update doesn't take the best decks in the game down a peg, you're kinda not doing it right. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. If you were interested in the game, I would recommend getting a Core Set, and then if you like what that has to offer, pick up the Terminal Directive expansion next. From there, look up what cards you are interested and buy what is worth it to you, if you're wanting to keep going.