Jump to content

Edheliad

Members
  • Content Count

    342
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Edheliad

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

462 profile views
  1. Why would anyone trust them to deliver given the state of their other LotR games?
  2. There's no way the digital game survives long enough to grow to the same extent on current showing. Initial reception of the product has been very different to that of the core tabletop, and it's a very different marketplace with waaay more competition. It's a shame. Had the potential to be far better than the original with a decent library of player cards and quests. But no one will be playing it in 2021 when they might have that in place.
  3. New adventure packs can't be purchased with the grindable in-game currency (which the expensive founders packs give loads of), so yes, you will need to spend actual money going forward. There's nowhere near enough content to justify spending money on it, and very little suggestion that will change. Tiny deck library, one short 5 quest campaign (plus a single "hard" quest I can't be bothered to try), a handful of new cards released over 2/3 months. Disappointing as the actual game part has a lot of potential.
  4. The attack/defence/health system is better, limiting number of characters each side is better, two card draw is better etc. There are lots of ground-level improvements to the design.
  5. You assume wrong. The framework of the digital game is far better than the tabletop one, it just lacks content. Compared to the original core set it's an incredible improvement. Even as a F2P product it was light on stuff to do, as a pay-only experience it needs at least 5x the quests, twice as many heroes and a much bigger card library to even resemble a basic budget digital product.
  6. It's an improved 2.0 version of the game. The game is going to be more microtransaction-based than before, now that valor won't be used to buy most new content. They're just dropping the soft loot crate mechanic where you earned free crates constantly (and couldn't buy them with real money).
  7. The private betas I'm involved in are invite-only and involve signing NDAs. This is a public beta period. Anyone with a credit card can participate.
  8. The best time would have been the design stage. Or maybe in alpha or private beta. Not months after people have already spent a decent amount of money on the product. It's "out" in every meaningful sense.
  9. Can't see the game lasting. The number of complete revisions they've already gone through is frightening.
  10. Of course the current card pool tri-sphere friendly. There's only a handful of heroes available, lumping in a lot of mono-specialised cards would be pointless. They go unused for months.
  11. Nimrodel passed long before the game takes place. There's a river named after her.
  12. One of the things I don't much care for is the focus on scoring. Getting through a quest by the skin of my teeth should feel like an accomplishment, not a disappointment because my rewards will be low, and my grinding for points will be slower. Unavoidable videogamey-ness, I guess.
  13. I'm sure they'll add more cards that need two heroes as the game grows. That catalogue is pitifully small at the moment. There's still plenty of depth and decision-making to the game as-is, though. Making a Three Hunters deck for example represents a challenge, as using two heroes of the same sphere is now a handicap as opposed to the advantage it was on the tabletop - we can only choose cards from two spheres rather than three, and will likely have a less rounded deck. It's not "missing a great deal of potential depth" it's approaching the idea of spheres from the other direction.
  14. I completely fail to see why this is an actual problem. Everyone build their decks to get through their decks asap in the first place, cutting out the middleman of playing cards to draw cards is simply good design work.
×
×
  • Create New...