Jump to content

Seastan

Members
  • Content Count

    1,616
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

About Seastan

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

1,932 profile views
  1. I don't really update my blog much. But I do go over some beginner deckbuilding advice in this episode of Cardboard of the Rings: https://cardboardoftherings.com/2019/05/30/episode-148-passing-of-the-grey-company/
  2. @John Constantine I haven't read the whole thread here, but from what I've read regarding the difficulty complaint, it sounds to me like you're saying a casual player that devotes basically no time toward improving their deckbuilding or gameplay should still be able to win most of the time with any kind of "fun" deck they throw together. Personally, I don't see this is a flaw, because if it were true the game would have long ago lost most of the dedicated players who have been keeping it alive. There's always a balance between making a game to hard, so that nobody wants to play anymore, and too easy, so that nobody wants to play anymore. The optimal for game longevity is obviously somewhere in the middle. But no matter where you set the difficulty, you disappoint some people that want it more in one direction or the other. That's inevitable. Clearly you are someone who wanted it to be easier. But if we step back and ask if it's an actual "flaw" of the game for the difficulty to be set where it is, I would point to its longevity being much longer than expected as evidence that it's not.
  3. Your best bet is still ringsdb.com. If you need it offline, you can always open up a tab with the deckbuilder while you have internet connection - you'll still be able to build once you go offline. Just make sure you connect back to the internet before you try saving it.
  4. I mean, if it was either this or Caleb just abandons the concept of Travel cost and starts printing "Forced: After this location becomes the active location..." onto every location, I guess I prefer this.
  5. I disagree with the word "necessarily" here. This "new, non-2.0 iteration" of the game could still include a list of card errata and mechanical changes that fix some legacy issues with the game while still maintaining backward compatibility. I'm not saying it will happen, but it is a possibility.
  6. Thankfully, the head of FFG studios disagrees. According to him, the majority of the playerbase does not want a 2.0. Shouldn't demanding that you want personally, that most of the playerbase does not want, be the selfish position? But to be clear, FFG doesn't owe me any product that I haven't paid for. Yet I want them continue the game forever. So in that sense, I am selfish. I can admit that.
  7. Well, I can say the same thing. The improvements that could come with a 2.0 are not the improvements the game needs. Wanting the game to reset because you are personally unhappy with the game's direction etc. etc.
  8. I've been watching the game improve for years, and that improvement has not plateaued, in my opinion. So I don't see myself as selfish (for that reason at least).
  9. And regarding the slower release pace, I'm actually OK with that. Because of the non-rotating card pool, every new set of player cards that comes out has a lot more deckbuilding combinations than the set that came before. And we've gotten to the point where it takes a really long time to explore all those combinations. For example, I play this game a lot, but still haven't touched Radagast yet because I'm still busy exploring a bunch of other card combos. Then there's the really cool stuff they can do with a big card pool, like the new Contract card type. Such a thing wouldn't be possible for a 2.0 game for a long time. Edit: And I'm aware of how the release cycle is faster at the beginning. I was playing this game from day 1. But it still took years for the deckbuilding to mature.
  10. But the new cards would be incompatible with the old. So I could not make use of the wealth of 1.0 cards when making a 2.0 deck. By not making it 2.0, it means that the new cards will be a lot more fun to deckbuild with.
  11. I am really happy that it's not. I like the deep card pool that we have, and a 2.0 version would be severely lacking in deckbuilding options for many years.
  12. I have my doubts. I think if they were going to start attempting such unorthodox teasers, they would at least do so through their own forums rather than reddit.
  13. Still working on refining the fellowship right now. It's similar to my solo list "The Shirebroke" (https://ringsdb.com/decklist/view/11796/theshirebroke-1.0) but expanded into two decks for consistency. Arwen is the strongest because she's got everything in one package. Spirit access, resource generation, card draw (through Elven-light), high willpower, reasonable threat cost, Noldor trait (for Elrond's Counsel). I'd put Cirdan at a distant second, followed by Galadriel, then Glorfindel (Eowyn if multiplayer), though Caldara has a argument for being in my second place slot, because like Dain she's crazy good if you devote your whole deck to her.
  14. I'm not sure this card does what you think it does. "Reveal" has a very specific meaning in this game - something you want to avoid, usually 😝.
×
×
  • Create New...