Jump to content

John Constantine

Members
  • Content Count

    2,180
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by John Constantine

  1. How do you handle pirate ships boarding you with lots of pirates?
  2. Did I? I was planning buying just the Saruman pack, and maybe Smeagol and Nya'shish ones. Regardless, my financial situation doesn't allow me to make such gargantuan purchases of something I'm not going to play.
  3. Couple of questions. How did you handle fight with the deck you've shown? There is not a lot, if any, fight related stuff in it, and raid on the havens is a very fight heavy quest if memory serves me well. I was often overwhelmed on initial turns. Yet you have almost no fight in the deck and somehow win. Correct me if I wrong, but you don't have a way to play Sword-elf that is in your deck?
  4. I'm sorry, you're gonna play each scenario only once? That's hardly has a legit statistical sample. I once beat nightmare anduin solo on my first try because I had the mildest encounter draw possible. Thats not saying much.
  5. I'm gonna trust you on this, but if is not too much trouble, a few highlights of the game would be great. I might I don't have any aps from the cycle, but don't let that stop you from playing the game if you really want to.
  6. I have been out of it for a pretty long time, but I don't really predict success for this deck in those scenarios at the very least. But don't let that stop you.
  7. Is he dough? Handing out resource advantage for any color in exchange for threat while paired up with heroes from the sphere that deals most easily with the threat and kinda lacks any good resource acquisition tools is not atleast decent mechanical synergy to you? Combined with Arwen, it's 5 resources per turn with 0 setup, in a deck with no leadership whatsoever.
  8. Then what is the issue in taking my hero lineup? Like, you're free to include anything into the deck itself, including the stuff I physically don't own.
  9. I unfortunately don't have it any longer. I remember it having Fair and Perilous and Elven event that draw a card from the discard pile and returns to the hand. I think it also had the lute that returns card to hand after discarding it. Hope that helps. Well, the themes you were trying to pick weren't the one my deck was having, so if your point was to pick any theme at all - why would you ask for my deck? And if you wanted to pick my deck's theme, why would you want to play something different? I'm quite confused with what you're trying to achieve here, but tell you what. If you have time and interest, do one with my hero lineup, and one with the dunedain noldor theme you initially wanted.
  10. I don't recall any particular Dundedain synergy going on, maybe a few powerful cost efficient allies.
  11. I stopped collecting and playing during the Dreamchasers era. My last box is Dreamchasers, and I don't think I've purchased any packs from that cycle. The last deck that I remember I've played was Arwen+Cirdan+Grima that the willpower part figure out on the table and specialized in cycling and resource acceleration to get heavy hitters out quickly. I remember Not being able to do much in any of the Dreamchaser quests with said deck.
  12. It sounds to you wrong. I'm saying that causal player that devotes his time to building a deck around theme/synergy that he likes instead of the usual OP stuff should stand a chance at beating at least a good portion of the quests. And, by the way, if the game had a better entry point and didn't obliterate newcomers with no chances in 2 out of 3 starting quests, I don't think there would be any need for deadicated players to keep it alive - they would be plenty of players of all kinds. AH LCG has four basic difficulties + Nightmare (Return) mode and it is going strong. Lowest difficulty is literally for people you've described - the ones who devote no time to building or improving their decks and gameplay. Medium difficulty is for regular players that I'm describing here, who like theme and synergies over min-maxing. Hard+ is where the game starts to putting pressure on you to play a certain way, and when it starts resembling LotR in it's default state. And I in return would point out that if the tables were turned, it's longevity would be much longer, and people wouldn't have to wait ages for each individual pack to come out, because if the difficulty scaling was done right, the deadicated players would still have their experience with nightmare + bunch of inheritely harder quests, while regular players could still enjoy the game without feeling shoehorned to build particular deck with particular cards or suffer the consequences.
  13. I never said the encounter deck consisted of globalized effects dough. It's something you apparently thought I meant, which I didn't. The amount and power of them in this game is unhealthy.
  14. Kjeld, yeah, I know, if you are so inclined, you can "snipe" the quests by building specifically for each one. I've done so myself. I recall building a Hobbit deck that had all the Black Riders in the frist LotR Saga quests engaged with me and attacking each phase, but being absolutely unable to strike through the fast hitching burning branded Bilbo with some +def signals. This deck turned the quest into a joke. The problem is, in my opinion, the game gives you a lot of toys, and when you try to play with them, it slaps you around, forcing you to either come back to the the usual suspect OP stuff, or "sniping" the quests, neither of which I enjoy. I think basic difficulty should be mainly reserved for people building regular/thematic decks, and the hard/nightmare stuff should be subject to sniping/abusing OP stuff. When almost every quest in the game has to be either abused or sniped - it's not that fun anymore. Thaeggan, yeah, setup X situation also highlight the problem with the multiplicated encounter card effects, creating situation when you may as well start over without even beginning to play, not to mention creating a giant pressure at the beginning without establishing proper tools for players to handle it. I'm sorry Khamul, but any attempt from your end to invalidate me as a player fades behind the fact that you think that everything I've listed is perfect for the game, so I can't really do anything for you here.
  15. They both actually are, and my feelings towards them are irrelevant. Even if they were two of my most loved game features, they create unhealthy game situations which you can't argue against. It doesn't make mathematical sense. Quests are easier in multiplayer, especially in early cycles, because of bad game design decisions. Off the top of my head, I think second stage of journey down the anduin has you revelaing 1 additional card each quest phase regardless of the number of players, so if you're solo - your encounter card count doubles, if you're four players - your encounter card count increases by 25%. If that's not an objectively bad game design decision in your book - I don't really know if there can be anything objectively bad for you at all, and just propose to agree to disagree. "Having elements of the game that scale against multiple players is IMO *good* design" - there is already an inbuilt scaling element: number of encounter cards on setup (sometimes) and per turn scales with the number of players. There is no actual need to scale and spread the effects themselves, because if in a 4 player game each player drew a card that affects each player, then players have essentially drawn 16 worth of encounter cards, and this is an objectively bad design outcome. It doesn't to you, it does to me. I see this as an evolution. Bad design elements get shaved off, better and more refined ones get introduced. Don't really see the point of Marvel Champions dropping locations altogether as a supposed fix to only one location problem. I didn't play MC, but I watched some vids, and if I remember correctly, the way questing there works is you just exhaust a character and progress immediately pops up. The concept of locations from LotR simply doesn't work there in any capacity. Also I'm fine with effects that affect each player in general, I'm not fine with the amount and power of them that are used in LotR. AH LCG also has effects that affect all players, but they are much more sophisticated and make sense. I don't see how Doomed situation can be addressed by the designers in any capacity except for crutches like Saruman's staff. Because reboot would imply they would need to make new content by the new standards. There gonna be no disbalance due to the gap between god tier and thematic trash cards, there would be no 900 basic attack enemies with 1000 health popping on first turns to get you regardless of your threat, etc. Of course the designers do what they do - they're in this too deep. They can't just abandon their design philosophy at this point, or many previous points. Magic the Gathering is one of the worst competitive card games on the market, immensively outdated (I'm not gonna argue on this, I'll just say that a game which you can lose just because you didn't draw mana or drew too much mana is not a good game) and is in severe need of reboot and rules revamp, but it's never gonna happen. Why? Because they are in it too deep. If they do it, they will lose on profits, they will invalidate the collections of all the people who are bringing them money. So they're not gonna do it. Are they correct from the financial standpoint? **** yes they are. Are they correct from the gameplay standpoint? **** no they arent.
  16. There is a lot of posts to answer, and even reading them takes a lot of time, and I got a whole day of work ahead of me, so excuse me for being compact in my response. dalestephenson, I'm not sure what this whole thing about, I never said LotR LCG was objectively bad, I just said I didn't like some segments of it, and while making enemies insanely strong can be argued as a subjective thing, I am willing to stand until my last breath for things like not scaling number of active locations or doomed being an objectively bad design. They didn't try to replicate LotR LCG, but game elements unavoidably overlap, and when they do, they didn't make the same mistakes again. I think if they made those descicions when designing the LotR LCG originally, the game would be a much more balanced and enjoyable by wider margin. Even if they agreed with my opinion, there is nothing they can do at this point in time with the game we have on our hands. If they suddenly turn around and change their entire design philosophy, many things just break down and stop working. And thats why I think 2nd edition would be a good thing thats never gonna happen Khamul, so far you sound like the only jokester in this thread. player3351457, yeah thats funny how they created an inveronment when multiplayer games get flooded with locations in the staging area because they can't efficiently explore them via the in-game means, so players are forced to use stuff like trackers to get out of such pickles, so then designers create cards that counter even those venues of resistance NathanH, I don't agree. I've played a lot of uncoordinated LotR LCG multiplayer back in the day, and when the decks are just solo decks that players have brought to play together - it rarely ended well. Those games were mostly an uphill struggle until the bitter hopeless end. I'm not sure if intentional or not, but it seems like LotR is trying to compensate lack of time pressure (agenda deck in AH LCG), pushing away casual players that try to have a fun and balanced game in the process. programdude, that's just as I said - Doomed in its current state can only work with a so called cruth, Saruman's Staff in this case. As for the difficulty, easy mode, and stuff... for a very long time that I played this game, no such thing as an easy mode existed. Even then when it was introduced, I don't want to rely on going online and looking stuff up every time I want to play a quest, setting up a regular quest is a cumbersome task by itself, it doesn't need any extra steps. As an additional note, such thing as appropriate balance for the content should be a thing. Looking back at core set days, there is one semi-balanced quest, and two nearly ubeatable unless giant encounter draw luck + an extremely finely tuned deck. And problems like these went through a lot of products. It's OK to have quests on a more of a diffuclt side, but not when they are the most of the quests that the game has, with saner ones being very few and far inbetwixt. I am sorry for the scarcityy of my replies, but it took me more than a hour to read through everything and form my thoughts and reply even in this compact manner, and as I mentioned, there is a very busy day ahead of me. Thank you for your replies.
  17. As I've mentioned multiple times, I've been playing a lot of Arkham Horror LCG. In general, I've been playing many different co-operative boardgames over many years. 1. It's not just that I find the game too difficult in vacuum, it's more that I find that game expects me to play only the top tier stuff if I want a shot at winning, which is an aspect I don't enjoy. 2. Arkham Horror LCG introduced separate quests deck for bad guys and good guys, which is a very good way to handle this. 3. My point is that the game shouldn't be about something in particular. It should let the player approach and beat it with many different combinations of tools it gives them, not giving them many different tools but only letting them win with one or two. I don't agree. An objectively bad game can be loved. Have you ever heard of a movie called "The Room"? It's an objectively bad movie, yet it is loved by many including yours truly. That being said, I never said LotR LCG is a bad game, I merely said that I think listed design choices are bad and are hurting the game. I'm not discussing design goals and if they failed or not. I'm discussing results purely, and they are not great and could've been better. I'm not saying new coop LCGs are attempts to lure in old players with new and improved mechanics. I'm saying that new LCGs are made with old experience in mind, and old experience shows that these design choices were not very good. Just like Arkham learned a lot of lessons from LotR LCG, especially which one not to repeat, Marvel Champions learned from Arkham that having doom not scale with the player count is not a very good design choice, which was translated into the new game. Game design is a very broad term, which includes card design and scenario design. Basically everything that is gameplay related. I don't think the game should be "fixed" at this point, or if it even can be fixed. The reprocussions are running too deep. One of the reasons I think the game should be given a second edition, like GoT.
  18. It is most definitely should, otherwise every game on earth would succeed because there is no bad design. There are bad designs. Some of them are subjective to player preference, some of them are more or less objective. Seeing how Arkham Horor LCG moved away from half of the encounter deck affecting each player, I think they understood that mathematical progression of encounter effects is not a healthy design and should be used very sparingly, if at all. Reveal N setup is OK in vacuum, it's not OK in situations it leaves you within the basic game of LotR LCG. And I wasn't cracking just at random setups, there are plenty of fixed setups that demand immediate answers than you can't give most of the time, and then you get also swamped during questing. My point was never that it wasn't *by design*, my point was that *this kind of design is bad, and causes bad game situations*. Scenario design is a part of the game design. I probably made it unclear when I was talking about cards that affect all players, but I didn't mean just treacheries. There are plenty of enemies and locations that screw over everyone. Once again, card design is a department of game design. Nothing requires, but there many unplayably bad nontheless. There is often a problem that they are worthless outside of their narrow scope, which is fine, but they are not even good within their narrow scope, which is not. I'm glad it works out for you (not a sarcasm). The way I see it, though, being shoehorned into a particular deck/player number subtracts from fun, not adds to it.
  19. Oh it's a feature, alright. But a feaature doesn't necessarily means it's good.
  20. I don't know why I am doing this, but those thoughts have been floating around my head for quite awhile, and I think it is a good time that I gave them some release. Please note that I am not doing it out of any kind of malign purpose, I have invested a lot of my time, money, and thoughts into this game across the many years, and despite that I've moved on to Arkhame LCG, and despite all the flaws of the LotR LCG, I still love it and wish it best. That being said, I want to list for discussion some things I think were handled badly with this game's design, starting with... 1. One Active Location The concept of only having one active location at a time regardless of the number of players is atrocious and leads to one of the game's biggest gameplay problems - location pollution in the staging area. Like a snowball, it keeps growing and there is little to be done about it, unless players have specifically prepared for it. Yes, there are ways to deal with this (Tracker), but when game forces players into a specific play pattern otherwise they're not gonna win - it's not a good design. Game should give options to play it, not eliminate them. Each player should have their own active location, and each location that has on travel or while active effects should affect only the player who has that location as active one. 2. Doomed This is very similar to the next point, but since it is also printed on player cards, I made it a separate one. Doomed shouldn't threat all the players by default, period. I will go deeper into the problem with this in my next point, but while addressing player doomed effects, I will say that if a card taxes every player in the game with threat, its effect should scale for every player, otherwise the net cost increases with each additional player, while gains from playing it remain static. When every player pays 2 threat for 2 cards because of Deep Knowledge - it makes sense; when each players pays 1 threat for 1 resource discount that Grima gives only to his owner - it doesn't. And there is nothing to be done about it, because Doomed is a badly designed keyword, and only ways to go around it would be to either drop the keyword entirely and increase threat by text/invent a new similar but different keyword, or use very elaborate card effects that prevent other players from paying unnecessary threat. Doom should've been designed to only affect the player who draws the encounter card/plays the player card with it, and in rare cases when Doom should actually affect each player, it could've been resolved by having a text like "Each player triggers Doom 2", or simply having a keyword modifier "Doom All 2". 3. Encounter Card Design Sharing the main sentiment with the previous point, this point is simple: there are just too many encounter cards that affect the entire party and not just the player who drew them. I even checked recent quests, and this problem haven't gone anywhere, it became worse if anything. For example, there is a treachery that makes each player either discard their hand or assign damage equal to the cards in hand among their characters. And thats just one card. It's a huge hit to everyone's health/hand in a multplayer game, and then each other player has to draw a card as well, which might turn out to be similar or the same card, hitting the entire party again. And they wonder why Test of Will so powerful. Because your treacheries are out of hand. Your cards are out of hand. The encounter deck already scales with each additional player by having each player draw an encounter card during the quest phase, you don't need to scale so many blasted inidivual encounter effects as well, making each encounter card draw grow stronger with the number of players. Arkhame Horror LCG took a very good note of this. 4. Enemy Design Most enemies are too bulky and too powerful to be fun to play against. Seriously, why even have such things as defense and health for allies and most heroes, if they all are gonna die from just 1 hit from an average enemy in this game? You need a dedicated defender akin to Beregond to even stand a chance of surviving a single attack, most expensive (more than 1 turn worth of resources) allies can easily die from 1 attack, and when they don't from raw stats - shadow effects are there to make sure they do. Don't get me wrong, shadow effects is an awesome game mechanic, I'm not here to knock on it (I have absolutely nothing bad to say about it), but with enemies already so powerful right off the bat and most player entities being so helpless to survive even a single attack... it's just an overkill. And then there is defense. If you somehow managed to keep enough characters ready to the point when you are able to retaliate, most of the enemies have insanely high defense to the point a single attack dedicated character is not going to scratch them, so you can't even go through the long route of gradually killing an enemy across multiple turns most of the time, you must muster enough attack to take their gargantuan defense+health pools in one swing or you're stuck with them. Did I mention you need to dispatch characters to quest (during which enemies also hinder you via their threat) and defend before you get to this point? 5. Bad Starting Conditions Oh boy, how many games are technically lost due to bad opening encounter draws. And if opening encounter draws weren't bad enough, you only start out wth 3 resources, with which you can't buy jackshit, but with which you are somehow expected to efficianly quest, attack and defend right off the bat. Players should either have more starting resources, or there shouldn't be so much encounter cards ahead of the first quest phase, unless absolutely necessary. Depending on a mild starting encounter draw to have at least the chance to play the game is not a very good design. 6. Insane difficulty on normal For a game that prints so much bad/mediocre but thematic cards, this game sure does kick you in the balls a lot for trying to play with them. Balancing the quests around the top, most overpowered player cards sure makes it not very fun to play for people who are not trying to minmax. Sure, there are some mildly difficult quests, but they are in minority (at least the ones I am acquainted with, do rememeber that I do not pose as some omnipotent being, this is all my subjective opinion), and you shouldn't be gated out of the larger quest mass just because you're not a min-maxing meta abuser type . And then there is nightmare. It feels like difficulty-wise most of the quest in their current state should've been nightmare.
  21. I kinda don't. Rule conundrums are usually "either or", and can't be ignored, lest the game be stalled and/or abandoned. Sounds like a very unhealthy rule.
×
×
  • Create New...