Jump to content

Edheliad

Members
  • Content Count

    342
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Edheliad


  1. On 11/24/2018 at 5:57 PM, Wandalf the Gizzard said:

    Just think what it was like when the physical game was released and you only had the core set: a very poor entry point to the vast, amazing game we have now.

    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.


  2. 17 minutes ago, joezim007 said:

    These announcements confused me... It said it's not longer free to play. In what ways is that changing? Are you going to need to pay in order to START the game? Or do you need to pay for new packs IN the game? Both? An option to pay for new packs with real money? I'm considering purchasing a Founder's Pack to get into Early Access now, but if I'm going to need to spend money inside the game to make any progress, then it's not worth it for me.

    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.


  3. 5 hours ago, Buhallin said:

    I...  huh.  If you prefer your games stripped down, dumbed down, and playable in 10 minutes while you're waiting for the bus then sure, I guess I can see where you're coming from.  To each their own.  But maybe let's see where the digital is 7 years from now...

    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.


  4. 4 hours ago, BigKahuna said:

    I assumed he meant 2.0 of the online version.  The online version improves absolutely nothing in any way shape the paper version.  It's  hallowed out,  empty shell of a game right now. 

    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. 


  5. 1 hour ago, BigKahuna said:

    This is a great move in my opinion, 50% of the reason that I haven't got involved in this digital version of the game was because it had the micro-transaction / loot crate stank on it and I just can't be bothered with business models like that.  Besides, the vast majority of games with that model fail miserably so I'm not really sure why the industry continues to try this.  It works.. sometimes... that is not a great track record to base your game on.  I'm not suprised they are changing it and I definitely support the change.   That said I think it will backfire on them horribly.  

    The issue here is that the LCG community, aka, the people who play Lord of the Rings the Living Card game are the target audience here and they have already largely rejected this Lord of the Rings the Hearthstone clone game concept and on steam the only people who are going to try playing it are the ones who can do it for free.  You stick a 30 dollar price tag on this thing and the general gaming community won't give it a second look.

    That said the other 50% of the reason I haven't tried this game and probably never will is that I don't understand the point of creating a card game based on a successful card game, but then changing the gameplay to be something completely different related only by the art work used.  Look, I'm a fan of Lord of the Rings the Living Card game... its the game I want to play, if your going to make a digital version of the game and you want me to buy it,.. do that.. make a digital version of THAT game... don't make a "Lord of the Rings The Living Card Hearthstone".  If I want to play Hearthstone... I will play Hearthstone.

    I just don't get it, who is doing marketing research over there?  This is a somber, happy community that loves Lord of the Rings the Living Card game... just bloody make it for us and I will mail you my credit card, but ... whatever this game is.. its not Lord of the Rings the LCG on a computer... so hard pass until that is addressed.

      

    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).


  6. 1 hour ago, Velensk said:

    I would also strongly be in favor of making more of each spheres essential/best cards not available with one hero of a sphere (which would probably be what you consider crippling tri-sphere decks) but again, this is not because as LotR game 'should' be some way but because it would be an immense waste of a system if they don't change it. Right now, forgoing having at least one hero in any of the four spheres (let alone more than one) denies you access to many of the best cards in the game and doubling up on heros of a sphere rarely gives you access to anything interesting. If they don't change this, then the whole ability to double up on heroes of a sphere  to get access to new cards will be as wasted as if in Magic rather than having mana of different colors, you instead just had mana and could choose 2 colors at the start of the game and you could only play cards that were those two colors. It would work, it could still be a decent game, but it misses a great deal of the potential depth and variety that could be leant to it by the system it has now.

    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.


  7. 1 hour ago, Velensk said:

    I feel like the game was far too generous with cards (especially given the max deck size) to the point where without putting a single card draw card in my deck, I'd draw my entire deck (or only not draw my entire deck because the game doesn't let you draw if your hand is full and I have no reason to play cards).

    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.


  8. I would hope there aren't big changes because the game is mechanically way better than the tabletop as it stands. 

    Changing hard mode to one card per turn is already a disappointing backward step. Next they'll be crippling tri-sphere decks to match old players' expectations of how LotR "should feel".

    Just throw up half a dozen more heroes for us to (spend money to) test. Easy money, and it would keep people like me playing instead of deleting and probably forgetting about it until long after release.


  9. 5 hours ago, Finch204 said:

    - Third reason is because he was shunned in the movie trilogy. Like seriously, Glorfindel was a bad-*** in the books, but you wouldn't know if you only watched the movies. If my memory serves me right, aside from Gandalf, Glorfindel is the only other character/hero I know, that has taken on and defeated a Balrog. And he's not even an Istari, just an Elf.

    Loads of Balrogs die in the fall of Gondolin. Ecthelion kills the biggest, baddest Balrog about twenty minutes before Glorfindel kills his (both die doing it, which is a bit repetitive tbh).


  10. 1 hour ago, Kjeld said:

    I wouldn't spend a ton of money on it right now, to be honest. I myself was very excited (mostly by the thought of being able to avoid all the setup and takedown time of the physical game), and went all-in for a Mithril Founder's Pack because I wanted to be able to access all the toys right away. Definitely not worth it. The game feels very shallow at the moment, especially with respect to the physical game we're all familiar with. As I wrote in the Steam forums, it seems that Asmodee decided to go for the customers who want a quick, no-strings liaison rather than a long-term relationship. I can't really see the current digital version achieving sufficient depth to merit a real investment of time or money -- also, it feels kind of grindy with the way the monetization system is set up.

    It's entirely similar to the core set of the tabletop game.

    I just hope the release schedule isn't as glacial as the original. Needs more quests and heroes asap, I doubt it's going to maintain player interest over a long period of time (years) regardless.


  11. 1 hour ago, Wandalf the Gizzard said:

    An amendment to my list:

    8. To see a "the game is dying" thread that gets no replies or likes.:P

    Because no one will be left to reply?

    Game's toast and the best we can do is try to enjoy the crumbs (and the digital replacement, I guess).

×
×
  • Create New...