Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
HidaYagimaki

Why 2017? why not 2016?

Recommended Posts

I have to imagine there were some early concept documents drawn up as part of the business plan to buy the property from AEG. A little less than 2 years seems about right.

I don't think it would make business sense otherwise, even if it were only rough ideas like "an X system like Game of Thrones with the Y system from Star Wars, but with the Z from Warhammer".  Zinser said that the original conversation had been about getting advice on how to save L5R, presumably by adapting it into an LCG.  Someone with FFG probably started thinking about how to do it and decided that they could do a better job in house.  If I were a betting man, I'd bet that the fundamentals of L5R's new system exists as a set of sticky notes on someone's wall right now.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah it's quite the wait. If anything they made the announcement too soon. Then again everything is a leak these days.

 

Too soon?  Eh, not sure, maybe some higher ups decided that AEG's continuing the game a few more months would do more harm than adding a few months to the wait... particularly if there are more balance problems with the sets that are already prepped for the printers... ultimately, there is a trade off in every decision, and I have a hard time thinking any of this was random.

 

The only really strange thing is pulling the plug right in the middle of the year... but then again, judging from kotei attendance, it was not really going to get any better by waiting.  Still the unfortunate TOs... some of them are likely going to take a huge loss on their fall events (from a dramatically reduced turnout).

 

 

Thaddok

 

 

PS: I have to admit intense curiosity about "who knew" and the timing/circumstances (at AEG and at FFG)... but I realize that such info is never going to be made public.

PPS:  As an ex-L5R player (quit in Emperor Edition, only to restart briefly and stop again in Ivory 1)... I am already looking forward to GenCon 2017 and getting started on the L5R LCG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering we had to have sets finished a year in advance in PT, two years to get a game designed, playtested and produced is not really that unreasonable.  We all want L5R back ASAP, but I would rather it be done well and successfully than rushed and ultimately fail in catching on enough to keep going.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering that L5R is currently a CCG which has a different dynamic for its cards compared to a LCG I would expect FFG to need this time to rework the game so it will fit into their idea of a LCG. In LCG's there is no such thing as a common, uncommon or rare card so balancing the cards by making more powerful or more complex cards "rare" will not work. Next to this, L5R has about a dozen or so different card types spread across a dozen or so different affiliations. Some cards can be used by all affiliations, some cards can be used by all but clearly favour certain affiliations, some cards are specific to an affiliation but can be used by others and some cards can only be used by one affiliation. A reduction in card types, card mechanics and a general cleanup of all those different card types is definitely in order to fit with the LCG approach. 

 

Oh, and to be fair: two years is SHORT for a complete game development cycle; most games with a good amount of complexity need one year to just test the mechanics, components and set of the release at the very least. And this doesn't include the fact that L5R is story driven in its releases; thus in order to make an L5R game they would need to have a story line set from the start with nodes where decisions can be taken in which direction the story can go (based for example on the performance and outcome of story tournaments). This will be the first time that FFG will be doing it like this, thus its safe to say that there will be some "design testing" needed. 

 

To be fair: the L5R game really deserves the full treatment and not a "pasted on"/"hasty"/"quick buck" approach that I see other game developers do (Wizkids I'm looking at you :D). FFG has a reputation for designing games where setting/story and mechanics are integrated really well (and to be fair I like the design they took with splitting the rulebooks into two separate ones) and I'm sure this featured heavily into Alderac selling the L5R to them. 

 

I have so far resisted the LCG's (I have bought some just to try it) and the only one that I was really interested in was Netrunner and even that one I only bought ONE base set. However, if FFG manage to capture the L5R setting and story into their game in a great way, I'm planning to start collecting it again. The ONLY reason i stopped collecting was the lack of fellow players and the lack of availability in my area which was a great shame. This game scratched an itch that Magic: The Gathering never managed to even though they tried to include more story in their game. I am a sucker for a good story and setting!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2015 doesn't have that much time left.  Give FFG until the end of the year to build a team for it and start designing.  If they start playtesting in January, they will probably have it in decent shape by June (maybe).  Add three months for major mechanics overhauls that may jump out as necessary during the process which will probably necessitate a full new batch of data to support.  Polish up the art and have it ready to hit the printers by October or November?

 

A 2016 release is improbable in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically, FFG has to be running on all cylindars with all departments and a steady flow of NOS to get a "good" game of the ground by gencon2017, let alone what the current base wants.

Yeah, odds are good that they still have people to pick for the dodgeball team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm amazed we're getting it so SOON.The sale goes down in September of 2015 and we're gonna have the redesigned game in our grubby little claws by summer of 2017? That's INSANE.

 

Unless FFG already had plans on how they would (re)design L5R... before they bought it. ;)

I've been under the impression that AEG came to FFG, not the other way around. If anyone happens to know where the reverse scenario was stated publicly, I'd appreciate a link.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Easy for all of you to say.  I am 64 and 2 years is a long time.

 

Understandable. But I doubt individual players' age is one of FFG's concerns in regards to release dates of a new product. 

 

Ultimately, it's the same policy of Blizzard and CD Projekt Red: "Release date: When it's ready." And they make some kick-ass games :)

Edited by Bayushi Karyudo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I'm amazed we're getting it so SOON.The sale goes down in September of 2015 and we're gonna have the redesigned game in our grubby little claws by summer of 2017? That's INSANE.

 

Unless FFG already had plans on how they would (re)design L5R... before they bought it. ;)

I've been under the impression that AEG came to FFG, not the other way around. If anyone happens to know where the reverse scenario was stated publicly, I'd appreciate a link.

 

 

In Zinser's post on the L5R Facebook group he said that he had gone to them for advice [presumably about how to convert L5R to an LCG], and then a couple days after Gencon they called him up with an offer to purchase the brand.  I wouldn't imagine that most people would make a fairly serious business commitment like that without having at least a cocktail napkin version of a plan.  I know I wouldn't for my business. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I'm amazed we're getting it so SOON.The sale goes down in September of 2015 and we're gonna have the redesigned game in our grubby little claws by summer of 2017? That's INSANE.

 

Unless FFG already had plans on how they would (re)design L5R... before they bought it. ;)

I've been under the impression that AEG came to FFG, not the other way around. If anyone happens to know where the reverse scenario was stated publicly, I'd appreciate a link.

 

 

Another possibility is that when the merger was proposed, FFG already had an engine in development that could have been a fit for the brand.  They could simply be adding the fluff and story to that engine and retooling it a bit to fit with the setting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering that L5R is currently a CCG which has a different dynamic for its cards compared to a LCG I would expect FFG to need this time to rework the game so it will fit into their idea of a LCG. In LCG's there is no such thing as a common, uncommon or rare card so balancing the cards by making more powerful or more complex cards "rare" will not work.

Rarity is a monetization choice, not design.  Frankly, AEG could do away with rarity altogether and make L5R an LCG overnight and the competitive and meta scene wouldn't change an iota; everyone who cares already has the cards they want/need to play the decks they desire.  Rarity is only an obstacle for those who play casually, otherwise it's not a balancing factor at all.

Rarity means your primary source of revenue is the purchase of packs and it therefore behooves you to make the powerful cards harder to obtain.  That's all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Considering that L5R is currently a CCG which has a different dynamic for its cards compared to a LCG I would expect FFG to need this time to rework the game so it will fit into their idea of a LCG. In LCG's there is no such thing as a common, uncommon or rare card so balancing the cards by making more powerful or more complex cards "rare" will not work.

Rarity is a monetization choice, not design.  Frankly, AEG could do away with rarity altogether and make L5R an LCG overnight and the competitive and meta scene wouldn't change an iota; everyone who cares already has the cards they want/need to play the decks they desire.  Rarity is only an obstacle for those who play casually, otherwise it's not a balancing factor at all.

Rarity means your primary source of revenue is the purchase of packs and it therefore behooves you to make the powerful cards harder to obtain.  That's all.

 

 

With both LCGs and CCGs, the amount of money you spend can broaden your deck choices. A player typically has to buy multiple core sets to get play sets of all of the cards. If I understand the Star Wars LCG (I don't play it but I read the rules), you can buy multiple packs if you wanted to use more objective sets. Provided the set isn't limited to, say, 1. The caveat is that LCGs just require far less investment every set and usually are more fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Considering that L5R is currently a CCG which has a different dynamic for its cards compared to a LCG I would expect FFG to need this time to rework the game so it will fit into their idea of a LCG. In LCG's there is no such thing as a common, uncommon or rare card so balancing the cards by making more powerful or more complex cards "rare" will not work.

Rarity is a monetization choice, not design.  Frankly, AEG could do away with rarity altogether and make L5R an LCG overnight and the competitive and meta scene wouldn't change an iota; everyone who cares already has the cards they want/need to play the decks they desire.  Rarity is only an obstacle for those who play casually, otherwise it's not a balancing factor at all.

Rarity means your primary source of revenue is the purchase of packs and it therefore behooves you to make the powerful cards harder to obtain.  That's all.

 

 

With both LCGs and CCGs, the amount of money you spend can broaden your deck choices. A player typically has to buy multiple core sets to get play sets of all of the cards. If I understand the Star Wars LCG (I don't play it but I read the rules), you can buy multiple packs if you wanted to use more objective sets. Provided the set isn't limited to, say, 1. The caveat is that LCGs just require far less investment every set and usually are more fun.

 

With the Star Wars LCG you need two copies of the core set and first deluxe set to get a play set of every objective (because FFG only put one of each objective in the core set and first deluxe set - and the Scum and Smuggler factions had fewer objectives than the others in the core set).  Every subsequent Force Pack and deluxe set only required the purchase of one to get everything you can legally put into a deck.

Nothing is stopping you from buying more Force Packs and what have you to build additional decks if you don't want to pull the set you have from your existing deck.  I have a friend who does this.  I've told him he's crazy.  He agrees.

So, for the Star Wars LCG, for complete play sets, you need:

2x Core Set

2x Edge of Darkness (first deluxe set)

1x of any other Force Pack or deluxe set you want for the objective sets therein

And if all you care about is casual play, 1x of the core set and Edge of Darkness is fine.

Edited by selderane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Considering that L5R is currently a CCG which has a different dynamic for its cards compared to a LCG I would expect FFG to need this time to rework the game so it will fit into their idea of a LCG. In LCG's there is no such thing as a common, uncommon or rare card so balancing the cards by making more powerful or more complex cards "rare" will not work.

Rarity is a monetization choice, not design.  Frankly, AEG could do away with rarity altogether and make L5R an LCG overnight and the competitive and meta scene wouldn't change an iota; everyone who cares already has the cards they want/need to play the decks they desire.  Rarity is only an obstacle for those who play casually, otherwise it's not a balancing factor at all.

Rarity means your primary source of revenue is the purchase of packs and it therefore behooves you to make the powerful cards harder to obtain.  That's all.

 

 

With both LCGs and CCGs, the amount of money you spend can broaden your deck choices. A player typically has to buy multiple core sets to get play sets of all of the cards. If I understand the Star Wars LCG (I don't play it but I read the rules), you can buy multiple packs if you wanted to use more objective sets. Provided the set isn't limited to, say, 1. The caveat is that LCGs just require far less investment every set and usually are more fun.

 

With the Star Wars LCG you need two copies of the core set and first deluxe set to get a play set of every objective (because FFG only put one of each objective in the core set and first deluxe set - and the Scum and Smuggler factions had fewer objectives than the others in the core set).  Every subsequent Force Pack and deluxe set only required the purchase of one to get everything you can legally put into a deck.

Nothing is stopping you from buying more Force Packs and what have you to build additional decks if you don't want to pull the set you have from your existing deck.  I have a friend who does this.  I've told him he's crazy.  He agrees.

So, for the Star Wars LCG, for complete play sets, you need:

2x Core Set

2x Edge of Darkness (first deluxe set)

1x of any other Force Pack or deluxe set you want for the objective sets therein

And if all you care about is casual play, 1x of the core set and Edge of Darkness is fine.

 

 

What about play sets outside of the core and deluxe expansions? If you really wanted to, could you actually buy enough to have 3~10 of a single objective set? 

 

If I really liked the game, casual for me is probably 1 of every set plus maybe extras if a set was really cool and I could use multiples. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you really wanted to, sure. But, for tournaments, you are only limited to 2 of each objective set in your deck. So, it would be pointless. I know of a few that buy more than one cycle pack, just to have more decks built. But, I would call them the minority. 

 

Outside of the Core set, you won't need to buy more than one for a playset of cards. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you really wanted to, sure. But, for tournaments, you are only limited to 2 of each objective set in your deck. So, it would be pointless. I know of a few that buy more than one cycle pack, just to have more decks built. But, I would call them the minority. 

 

Outside of the Core set, you won't need to buy more than one for a playset of cards. 

 

Ah ok, I didn't know that the limit was 2 for tournaments. I just hope that FFG doesn't really pull 'option' with L5R packs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If you really wanted to, sure. But, for tournaments, you are only limited to 2 of each objective set in your deck. So, it would be pointless. I know of a few that buy more than one cycle pack, just to have more decks built. But, I would call them the minority. 

 

Outside of the Core set, you won't need to buy more than one for a playset of cards. 

 

Ah ok, I didn't know that the limit was 2 for tournaments. I just hope that FFG doesn't really pull 'option' with L5R packs.

 

 

There's no distinction between custom decks for casual play and custom decks for tournaments in FFG games in terms of the number of copies of a pod or card you're allowed to play.

 

FFG does maintain a restricted list for each of their games, which prevents you from playing cards off the restricted list in combination with each other. That way, cards that are only a problem when combined don't have to be banned outright. Don't think any cards are outright banned, but I could be wrong.

 

Aside from the restricted list, though, casual play abides by the same deck rules as tournament play. Not sure what Sithborg is referring to, unless it's a couple of buddies agreeing to house rules.

Edited by BD Flory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

If you really wanted to, sure. But, for tournaments, you are only limited to 2 of each objective set in your deck. So, it would be pointless. I know of a few that buy more than one cycle pack, just to have more decks built. But, I would call them the minority. 

 

Outside of the Core set, you won't need to buy more than one for a playset of cards. 

 

Ah ok, I didn't know that the limit was 2 for tournaments. I just hope that FFG doesn't really pull 'option' with L5R packs.

 

 

There's no distinction between custom decks for casual play and custom decks for tournaments in FFG games in terms of the number of copies of a pod or card you're allowed to play.

 

FFG does maintain a restricted list for each of their games, which prevents you from playing cards off the restricted list in combination with each other. That way, cards that are only a problem when combined don't have to be banned outright. Don't think any cards are outright banned, but I could be wrong.

 

Aside from the restricted list, though, casual play abides by the same deck rules as tournament play. Not sure what Sithborg is referring to, unless it's a couple of buddies agreeing to house rules.

 

Hopefully the same doesn't happen in L5R. It is pretty awful when cards need to be errata'd, mrp'd or banned outright. Restrictions like the above are as bad as the aforementioned, and is actually a symptom of cross faction variance.

 

L5R used to have it to, "Will not join a x Clan player....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

If you really wanted to, sure. But, for tournaments, you are only limited to 2 of each objective set in your deck. So, it would be pointless. I know of a few that buy more than one cycle pack, just to have more decks built. But, I would call them the minority. 

 

Outside of the Core set, you won't need to buy more than one for a playset of cards. 

 

Ah ok, I didn't know that the limit was 2 for tournaments. I just hope that FFG doesn't really pull 'option' with L5R packs.

 

 

There's no distinction between custom decks for casual play and custom decks for tournaments in FFG games in terms of the number of copies of a pod or card you're allowed to play.

 

FFG does maintain a restricted list for each of their games, which prevents you from playing cards off the restricted list in combination with each other. That way, cards that are only a problem when combined don't have to be banned outright. Don't think any cards are outright banned, but I could be wrong.

 

Aside from the restricted list, though, casual play abides by the same deck rules as tournament play. Not sure what Sithborg is referring to, unless it's a couple of buddies agreeing to house rules.

 

Hopefully the same doesn't happen in L5R. It is pretty awful when cards need to be errata'd, mrp'd or banned outright. Restrictions like the above are as bad as the aforementioned, and is actually a symptom of cross faction variance.

 

L5R used to have it to, "Will not join a x Clan player....

 

 

It's not a symptom particular to any design style. Looking at Star Wars, the first cards that hit the restricted list were from the same faction (two pods from the Smugglers and Spies faction). That right there pretty comfortably puts paid to the, "cross-faction is the problem," argument, so let's not drag it into this thread if we can possibly help it. :P

 

A cursory google shows 4 cards banned in the current L5R environment. I would argue (and I suspect most FFG players would agree) that they'd rather be able to play cards even if they can't be combined with a few specific other cards (i.e. restricted), than they would be unable to play those cards at all.

 

All ongoing card games get some kind of post release card pool management at some point, whether it be banning, restriction, or erratta (preferably with a fix in reprint, of course). *Something* always slips through playtest, no matter how thorough. Expecting otherwise from any company is unrealistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because another game has restricted cards, doesn't mean that it isn't a symtpom. It absolutely IS unequivocally a symptom of cross faction given that the issue would not exist in the case mentioned in the thread if the restriction was in place. Whether you feel that it is tolerable enough is up for debate, but from a design point of view, it was a solution to cross faction deck construction. (in the terms of design and deck construction btw, "Pods" are essentially factions. There is a distinction between thematic faction and mechanical faction.)

 

L5r has done this too with loyal personalities. And it is a solution to the cross faction nature of l5r. If Scorpion/Crab dishonor were able to play Shinjo Jao-Shen he would of been pretty powerful given the environment. The sad thing for that Jao shen deck is, because it was so far behind the other decks that used dishonor, it lacked personalities, and any personality you then printed for them, would have to have either a high HR restriction or the loyal keyword. The loyal keyword works, but it just adds to card bloating. This means that it should come under careful consideration whether the trade off of allowing any clan to play a personality is worth it for the extra keywords. Personally, I do think it is worth it.

 

The other option ofc would be to slap an above the box HR on a personality, which is pretty poor considering the deck was behind the curve already.

 

Everything has a solution. And every implementation has is benefits and drawbacks, there is no better or worse really as it comes down to personal preference.

 

It is true things slip through playtest, I've seen that first hand, that is why it is important to find some sort of balance of the number of playable deck types. For example with l5r, if every clan could "ally" with every other clan you actually end up with 81 decktypes minimum. That isn't really feasible to playtest at all, and it is times like that which slip through the net. It is also not feasible to balance in the first place!

 

Those banned cards .EGf Advance Warning. Restricting it wasn't an option really. It was directly damaging to the environment. L5R has a lot of restricted cards, I think it is pretty lazy design personally as it is a real brute force solution. I'd always prefer something similar to a piguovian approach to those kinds of issues. Restrictions aren't fun in card games in most cases, incentive is how you move people toward and away from things, and is  much more elegant design.

 

To actually get onto the topic. I'd much much prefer FFG take all the time they need to get the product right. No point rushing something out, I think there will definitely still be an appetite for it. I myself plan on going over to gencon 2017 for the launch.

Edited by Moto Subodei

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...