McDermott
-
Content Count
180 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by McDermott
-
-
3 hours ago, Moto Subodei said:I never said it was onerous, just not optimising design potential.
I can only assume you disagree with me on the holdings so answer this for me. Why is printing 10 individual cards that function in the same way for every clan - but only for one clan each, better design than printing one agnostic card that does the same for all? There is opportunity cost with everything you print in a set, wouldn't it be better design to print that one agnostic holding, and 9 other holding cards that do something different? If not, then why? What are the reasons that clan holdings are in your view are better design than the aforementioned?
Keyword cards. L5r is a game that ran off keyword cards and keywords played a huge role in various clan themes.
Yes it would have been more efficient to have a solitary 2 for 3 that everyone could use, but having cards that key off mines/ports/etc had a role in the game, albeit an underutilized one.
-
45 minutes ago, Moto Subodei said:Saw another thing about turn order in this thread. For me one quick way of fixing clan imbalances was making who goes first completely randomized. The honor idea was nifty and all, but it was a relic that meddled with game mechanics which provided very little in favour in return.
45 minutes ago, Moto Subodei said:I think its generally accepted that ivory was bad. 20F however was well received and provided a good base for Onyx, which was going to be really good and well received in my opinion.
There are a few misconceptions ive seen throughout this thread, one being that L5R wasn't making money. This isn't true at all, and from conversations I've had, the regret was that money L5R generated was subsidising other sides of the business rather that going back into the game which led to the stagnation of Ivory, rather than not having any money.
Saw another thing about turn order in this thread. For me one quick way of fixing clan imbalances was making who goes first completely randomized. The honor idea was nifty and all, but it was a relic that meddled with game mechanics which provided very little in favour in return.
One last thing, clan holdings. The logic about removing clan holdings was pretty simple, and it was a very good idea. The logic was, there was no decision about them going in your deck. They are just auto includes. So you have 3 slots of every deck (about 8% of your deck) that were already decided. This isn't good design.
MTG has like 25 to 30% of their deck preset. Any card game with a limited card pool is going to have some % of its deck preemptively decided. 8% is hardly onerous.
And frankly, there was no reason whatsoever to upend the basic ruleset of the game for Ivory. Free gold from phoenix and mantis strongholds hammered EE, not the basic ruleset.
-
6 hours ago, Sparks Duh said:Well... I was going to engage you with more serious debate, but I can see now that you are only trolling people and actually have no clue what you're talking about.
Really? Cause Ivory murdered the game where i was at, tournament attendance plummeted, and the game was sold off soon after. On the internet people who had defended AEG and the game simply stopped, calling it the return of gold edition but without any of the good cards. I mean i get that since tons of the people who used to play aren't around anymore its easy to kind of rewrite the games history on these boards, but ivory did nothing good for L5R and it ended up sold before a new arc could come out, despite apparently being into the design process for Onyx.
-
7 hours ago, cielago said:this was practically the l5r motto for the last few years. there was a lot to like about the evolution of the rules towards the end, but those efforts were pretty consistently betrayed by bonkers decisions in card design, leading to seesawing balance, bans, errata, etc. one of the reasons formats like modern are so much fun, i think, is that the wider card pool dilutes the ability of specific cards to be the monsters they were in their native environments, while using the "best of all possible rules", so to speak.
Its also a little bit strange to talk about how it was "good for the game" when it was the arc that literally killed the game. Clearly it WASN'T good for the game.
-
Its pretty dumb to blame cards that had been staples for the entirety of the games existence without issue rather than the poorly thought out new rule that screwed everything sideways and added a whole clear your gold pool issue to keep track of.
-
On 1/27/2017 at 9:54 AM, sndwurks said:L5R CCG did a lot to help stabilize play by introducing "Gold Pooling" in Ivory, and allowing you to Cycle during your first turn. While it was still possible to get Gold screwed or Personality screwed, it happened much less frequently in the tournaments that were happening AFTER the introduction of Cycling than before. And that is, basically, a public Mulligan on your Dynasty.
Also, I feel that Gold pooling was a much more beneficial effect to the economy of the game than the Legacy style holdings (Gifts & Favors, Border Keep, Bamboo Harvesters, Forgotten Legacy).I'm sorry, gold pooling crapped all over game balance. It was one of the worst changes ever put into the game, they'd have been better off putting corrupt gold back in than allowing pooling.
Example:
Your sh gives 4, you flip 2 clan holdings and 2 dudes. Gold pooling doubles your T2 gold compared to older editions, accelerates your game and did things like give T3 2 guys and a holding. To quote an older l5r player. Thats far too blitzz.
-
All I could say is that, besides making FFG aware that the L5R Community is pretty protective of the franchise and they should not screw up, judging without basis of scrutiny is pretty useless. I'm seriously praying that this turns out well because I stopped playing for years, and this could be the perfect time to start playing again.
The absolute best thing that could happen to FFG's L5R for its long term health would be those players who are "pretty protective" of the franchise ragequitting early enough for them to build a playerbase without a decade of baggage and ridiculous expectations from the company.
-
As someone who worked at a game store with both a brick and mortar shop and a very successful online store, starter displays like you used to have with L5R and like you still see with MtG are a retailer's nightmare. Inevitably, you have some decks that sell better in an evenly a display with an even number of each deck. This was especially egregious with L5R with its many factions. So you sell out of the popular deck and then you need to decide if it is worth it to buy another display for the few popular decks or whether you will be wasting money because of the decks you are going to have sitting around gathering dust.
Yes, i've heard that problems with displays but in CCG era many of my friends who managed stationary stores just unpacked unsold starters and used included cards as re-draft prizes in local tourneys.
Back to idea, modify it a bit, and let's treat every starter as stand alone product you may order separately instead in sealed boxes of X? Would it change something?
Those Gempukku starters? I checked my old store's website. They still have Spider and Crane decks sitting around three years after the fact.
It's not serious argument i think. Random shop with random product left. I've also checked online store of Polish official AEG/L5R distributor. Number of Gempukku starters available: 0 even if ther're still Gempukku boosters available.
Many stores sell those things at a loss if not dumpster them for shelf space once the arc has ended to avoid huge piles of unsold product cluttering their space.
Yeah, as they probably do with every CCG stuff that has rotation and not enough support legacy formats. But we never know it's an effect of lack of interest or wrong planned business.
I think that limited shelf space also concerns LCG. When two months ago i was looking for Core Sets for Call of Cthulhu (i've found none!) i was surprised that EVERY boardgame store here got latest three CoC deluxe they will probably never sell. Money lost.
except LCGs are, by their very nature cheaper than CCGs, unless you change the format to be more like a CCG by, for example, turning the base set into individualized faction starters.
-
As someone who worked at a game store with both a brick and mortar shop and a very successful online store, starter displays like you used to have with L5R and like you still see with MtG are a retailer's nightmare. Inevitably, you have some decks that sell better in an evenly a display with an even number of each deck. This was especially egregious with L5R with its many factions. So you sell out of the popular deck and then you need to decide if it is worth it to buy another display for the few popular decks or whether you will be wasting money because of the decks you are going to have sitting around gathering dust.
Yes, i've heard that problems with displays but in CCG era many of my friends who managed stationary stores just unpacked unsold starters and used included cards as re-draft prizes in local tourneys.
Back to idea, modify it a bit, and let's treat every starter as stand alone product you may order separately instead in sealed boxes of X? Would it change something?
Those Gempukku starters? I checked my old store's website. They still have Spider and Crane decks sitting around three years after the fact.
It's not serious argument i think. Random shop with random product left. I've also checked online store of Polish official AEG/L5R distributor. Number of Gempukku starters available: 0 even if ther're still Gempukku boosters available.
Many stores sell those things at a loss if not dumpster them for shelf space once the arc has ended to avoid huge piles of unsold product cluttering their space.
-
Only if that customer spent money in the first place. Otherwise they're just noise on forums...snotty yelp reviews...etc
Edit:
And to be frank, if lotus open playtest, and emperor edition, and 4th ed d+d taught us any lesson that should be learned, its that forums are terrible at making decent games or sussing out legitimate balance issues prior to print.
Not sure why you put 4th Edition D&D in there. That's easily the most solid rules work ever done in any D&D edition ever. Still my favorite edition as well.
so solid it handed the crown of most popular fantasy rpg to pathfinder for a decade
-
Only if that customer spent money in the first place. Otherwise they're just noise on forums...snotty yelp reviews...etc
Edit:
And to be frank, if lotus open playtest, and emperor edition, and 4th ed d+d taught us any lesson that should be learned, its that forums are terrible at making decent games or sussing out legitimate balance issues prior to print.
-
Don't like it don't buy it. More for the rest of us.
Not so fast. I'll just wait for for first wave of second hand sales. Just like did with Conquest buying everything for 50% after 1st cycle.
Hey guys, i'm also really interested how this game will look but my current experiences with FFG/LCG tell me it won't be a good game.
Criticising someone for being optimistic about a game they haven't even seen yet, two posts later; being pessimistic about a game that's not even out yet......
Most of your comments here basically boil down to your unreasonable desire of having a playset of cards for 60 dollars. the lcg model is demonstrably cheaper than ccg yet you still want everything for next to nothing.
I for one welcome the day companies start offering cheapskate players nothing but a raised middle finger.
-
HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
EDIT:
To be clear, the reason Core sets exist in their current form is to lure people in to the game making it financially feasible to continue producing the game.
It isn't financially feasible for FFG to throw 30 more cards into a Core Set? Offer a "DELUXE" Core and charge $10 more and include the full variety of the cards.
Because what an LCG needs is more SKUs, right?
Look, they make the uneven cores so that there is a decent game out of the box. Is it annoying to have to buy 2, sure. But it is the model that has worked for FFG in the past, and it sure isn't changing (this thread literally pops up everytime there is a new LCG).
This thread pops up because their model sucks for players and they should fix it. Are the defenders of this logic really going to be upset if they only have to ever buy 1 Core Set? Honestly?
They will when the game is discontinued or only gets 1 expansion a year because it isn't financially feasible for the company to throw more money at it.
-
I also suspect itd be wise to get used to the idea that information will come when there's something to share rather than when people get itchy for news.
There is nothing wrong with FFG seeing that a healthy interest for the game they bought exist. Much better that there be folks looking forward to the game's release than dead forums with nary a post for two years.
There isn't, but after nearly 20 years of observation of the l5r fanbase, this logic and the expectation of regular direct interaction has a tendency to grow exponentially, and the resentment of not having that grew about as fast.
-
I suspect itd be wise to get used to the idea that forumgoers are not going to have the same kind of influence and access they took for granted under AEG.
I also suspect itd be wise to get used to the idea that information will come when there's something to share rather than when people get itchy for news.
Shiba Gunichi and Doji Satevis reacted to this -
A significant amount of the playerbase viewed it as a great break point to step away from the game. Maybe...MAYBE they'll be back, i think assuming it will overtake Netrunner is wildly optimistic.
-
Netrunner had 20 years for people to forget the aspects of it and community members they disliked. L5r is going to have 1.5 years, not nearly long enough.
-
Oups we did it again. *looking down at W40k*
The #1 seed is L5R's. That's fore sure.
Don't use FFG LCG forums traffic as a measurement. Most LCGs discussion is not done on these boards.
This, To be honest I think there are a lot of people who vastly overestimate the resilience of the l5r playerbase. It was an aging playerbase that was developing alternate hobbies and responsibilities years ago, and I really don't think that has changed.
-
Then you have to add Honor and Dishonor are prone to stalemate/drag on/go to time when placed head to head.
Also: Enlightenment as a victory condition tends to either be completely unviable, or play its own game separate from the game the opponent is playing when it wins.
The holding system encourages both exponential resource growth which is harder to balance, and increases the odds of resource screw via the 4 province system.
The bones of the game are warped just enough that hanging any meat off them increases the chance of abusive interactions later on quite a lot.
Dueling has undergone at least half a dozen changes and still isn't quite right.
-
I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with the core mechanics of l5r, just with the cardpool. Since we're starting from square 1 in that regard, while I imagine it won't be backwards compatible, I'm hoping that not too much changes in terms of the overall 'stronghold, 2 decks, 4 provinces' structure.
As is Military will always be the on average strongest deck type, period, because its like a mixture of fast creature blitz + blue control to compare it to a magic decktype.
-
The FFG L5R will likely be so mechanically different from existing L5R, that it's unlikely that much of the essence of what we call L5R (ie Strongholds, Sensei, the Provinces, two decks, et all) will remain.Based on how they handled Got 2.0 and Netrunner, I dont really see that being the case. Some things will change, but I dont see end of the world, everything is different changes, based on the names internally that wanted L5R.
Both of those games had far fewer mechanical problems than L5R does now
-
I dunno, the Naga could amass quite a body of troops during the Clan Wars. Ratlings.... who the hell knows. But there's a lot of the little bastards.
Thats kind of my point though. They're presented as these fallen races in the fluff. Naga were asleep for millennia, had already had problems with reproduction, had a ton of their egg beds destroyed and still manage to rival a great clan in force strength?
The disconnect between the fluff of being a fallen people near extinction and suddenly having the strength to rival a great clan makes it hard for me to get into those factions.
-
I feel like they were better used as the odd unaligned card, or rare clan based card rather than as factions.
Think about what being a faction means..it means you're on the same level as say, the lion clan.
I just don't see these "fallen races far from their glory" as ever being that.
-
I thought Shadowlands went away mostly because they wanted to move the brand towards a focus on humans. If the main thing was dishonor interaction and wanting to expand dishonor, I'm not sure why they immediately printed Maw's Grave in Samurai Edition (Maw's Grave was printed as a rare Stronghold while Spider took over as a faction with a starter deck), which had the old school total prevention of honor loss (and which was tournament relevant). And did anyone but Scorpion actually do dishonor in Samurai Edition?
For the same reason they removed ratling then a few arcs later made noises about bringing back naga. Factions have fanbases and the company was prone to throwing them a bone.
Lcg lf5 is a mistake
in Legend of the Five Rings: The Card Game
Posted
Also it isn't about personal pet peeves, its about claiming a thing "was good for the game" when its presence coincided with participation rates dropping drastically, and the game that was apparently successful enough to prop up other games being sold off. Because it was so successful.