Jump to content
VernonBroche

Do some people seem overly whiny/negative about this game?

Recommended Posts

Saying that oldL5R didn't have gameplay-related problems is simply and obviously untrue, as well. Look, they maintain the theme just fine, simply shifting the emphasis a little. They genuinely (and in interesting new ways) try to fix the issues that the old game had, and that gets me interested.

Ignoring everything that was wrong with the old game, while also ignoring everything the new game does to carry the theme forward? Doesn't exactly make a strong point to in favor of listening to you or your criticism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, SlackerHacker said:

I played both NR and ANR plus L5R.  So far I would say L5R LCG is as close to L5R CCG as ANR is to NR. L5R LCG might actually end up being closer by time we have cards in hand. We will see.

A:NR ported all the rules and game mechanics from C:NR, a straight port.

Differences:

  1. Theme, added factions and theme to the game
  2. Copy limits, the old didn't had as first MTG didn't and also V:TES (all from the same designer)
  3. Trace mechanic, used bidding and was removed and cleared, porting the bidding mechanic into Psy effects later
  4. Randomness removed, some cards had dice rolling into it, but that was card design and not game design

Regarding theme, not a game design change. Influence and deck building was to be added to the fact the game has now factions. Not a game design break.

Copy limits, well, it's a LCG and C:NR was designed when copy limits weren't an issue.

The only game mechanic change was Trace, and even that is pretty tied to the original.

Looking into L5R LCG, starting with the awful fading rule, passing through the remove of Enlightenment and ending in how Province breaking and combat is irrelevant... I see more changes from an original design I have fingers to count.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, SlackerHacker said:

I played both NR and ANR plus L5R.  So far I would say L5R LCG is as close to L5R CCG as ANR is to NR. L5R LCG might actually end up being closer by time we have cards in hand. We will see.

A:NR ported all the rules and game mechanics from C:NR, a straight port.

Differences:

  1. Theme, added factions and theme to the game
  2. Copy limits, the old didn't had as first MTG didn't and also V:TES (all from the same designer)
  3. Trace mechanic, used bidding and was removed and cleared, porting the bidding mechanic into Psy effects later
  4. Randomness removed, some cards had dice rolling into it, but that was card design and not game design

Regarding theme, not a game design change. Influence and deck building was to be added to the fact the game has now factions. Not a game design break.

Copy limits, well, it's a LCG and C:NR was designed when copy limits weren't an issue.

The only game mechanic change was Trace, and even that is pretty tied to the original.

Looking into L5R LCG, starting with the awful fading rule, passing through the remove of Enlightenment and ending in how Province breaking and combat is irrelevant... I see more changes from an original design I have fingers to count.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, SlackerHacker said:

I played both NR and ANR plus L5R.  So far I would say L5R LCG is as close to L5R CCG as ANR is to NR. L5R LCG might actually end up being closer by time we have cards in hand. We will see.

A:NR ported all the rules and game mechanics from C:NR, a straight port.

Differences:

  1. Theme, added factions and theme to the game
  2. Copy limits, the old didn't had as first MTG didn't and also V:TES (all from the same designer)
  3. Trace mechanic, used bidding and was removed and cleared, porting the bidding mechanic into Psy effects later
  4. Randomness removed, some cards had dice rolling into it, but that was card design and not game design

Regarding theme, not a game design change. Influence and deck building was to be added to the fact the game has now factions. Not a game design break.

Copy limits, well, it's a LCG and C:NR was designed when copy limits weren't an issue.

The only game mechanic change was Trace, and even that is pretty tied to the original.

Looking into L5R LCG, starting with the awful fading rule, passing through the remove of Enlightenment and ending in how Province breaking and combat is irrelevant... I see more changes from an original design I have fingers to count.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, SlackerHacker said:

I played both NR and ANR plus L5R.  So far I would say L5R LCG is as close to L5R CCG as ANR is to NR. L5R LCG might actually end up being closer by time we have cards in hand. We will see.

A:NR ported all the rules and game mechanics from C:NR, a straight port.

Differences:

  1. Theme, added factions and theme to the game
  2. Copy limits, the old didn't had as first MTG didn't and also V:TES (all from the same designer)
  3. Trace mechanic, used bidding and was removed and cleared, porting the bidding mechanic into Psy effects later
  4. Randomness removed, some cards had dice rolling into it, but that was card design and not game design

Regarding theme, not a game design change. Influence and deck building was to be added to the fact the game has now factions. Not a game design break.

Copy limits, well, it's a LCG and C:NR was designed when copy limits weren't an issue.

The only game mechanic change was Trace, and even that is pretty tied to the original.

Looking into L5R LCG, starting with the awful fading rule, passing through the remove of Enlightenment and ending in how Province breaking and combat is irrelevant... I see more changes from an original design I have fingers to count.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, SlackerHacker said:

I played both NR and ANR plus L5R.  So far I would say L5R LCG is as close to L5R CCG as ANR is to NR. L5R LCG might actually end up being closer by time we have cards in hand. We will see.

I don't know. You can easily take nearly every card of old Netrunner, claim it's neutral, and it will be playable in A:NR. It's impossible with L5R as i see.

For me L5R LCG looks only like a game that shares concept of two decks with old one. It looks similiar (i see a marketing point behind it), but in term of gameplay it's just totally new game. If two games play totally different you can't call them "refreshed/cleaned". Android: Netrunner was. This one is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except of course Fading was mostly awful because it wasn't a core mechanic that everything is built around; a game length of (on average) 3-6 turns means that your cards can stick around for a *significant* part of the game anyway; combat is definitely not irrelevant, in fact, it is more relevant because you can't just keep avoiding it, preventing the other guy from gaining any benefits; Province breaking won't be irrelevant either, it simply isn't a three-for-one anymore and we're left with a single point you're actually correct about.

Enlightenment through having the five rings in play is no longer a win condition.

I'm sorry, but your arguments are terribly weak and significantly misrepresent both the old and the new game. This isn't useful to anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Single fact there's one turn with all these back and forth attacks makes this game totally different. And it's only one of major differences.

5 minutes ago, Myrion said:


I'm sorry, but your arguments are terribly weak and significantly misrepresent both the old and the new game. This isn't useful to anyone.

 I could say same for you.

Edited by kempy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, kempy said:

I don't know. You can easily take nearly every card of old Netrunner, claim it's neutral, and it will be playable in A:NR. It's impossible with L5R as i see.

For me L5R LCG looks only like a game that shares concept of two decks with old one. It looks similiar (i see a marketing point behind it), but in term of gameplay it's just totally new game. If two games play totally different you can't call them "refreshed/cleaned". Android: Netrunner was. This one is not.

I'm quoting Kempy here because he's really cutting to the heart of it - it's a totally new game.

I'm not sure that's at dispute here. From the very beginning announcement, we knew this was a new game with new rules that would be incompatible with the old game. Anyone who is basing their prospective enjoyment of the new game on it being the old game in a new skin is operating on poor information. The biggest difference, it looks like, will be how the game feels while playing - which is information we simply don't have yet. Anyone stating that they don't like how it looks and feels is expressing a perfectly valid viewpoint. Anyone stating that they're excited for the new game is also.

The main arguments seem to be "i don't like the changes, therefore it's going to be bad for me" and "I didn't enjoy the old game as much when X thing happened, so I'm excited for a new game". The main thing we can all agree on? It's different. Maybe it's not what you expected, either negatively or positively. But to keep going around and around over "it's different!" seems self-defeating. Either you'll have fun playing the new game or you won't, but since those are both matters of personal preference, why get so worked up about it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, oDESGOSTO said:

A:NR ported all the rules and game mechanics from C:NR, a straight port.

Differences:

  1. Theme, added factions and theme to the game
  2. Copy limits, the old didn't had as first MTG didn't and also V:TES (all from the same designer)
  3. Trace mechanic, used bidding and was removed and cleared, porting the bidding mechanic into Psy effects later
  4. Randomness removed, some cards had dice rolling into it, but that was card design and not game design

Regarding theme, not a game design change. Influence and deck building was to be added to the fact the game has now factions. Not a game design break.

Copy limits, well, it's a LCG and C:NR was designed when copy limits weren't an issue.

The only game mechanic change was Trace, and even that is pretty tied to the original.

Looking into L5R LCG, starting with the awful fading rule, passing through the remove of Enlightenment and ending in how Province breaking and combat is irrelevant... I see more changes from an original design I have fingers to count.

Yeah and L5R CCG has a LOT that has carried over to the LCG.

1) Clan factions (themes based on their clans)
2) 2 Decks
3) Engaging in epic battles to destroy provinces
4) Multiple victory conditions

I could go on and on, but it seems pointless arguing this with you because you obviously don't really care about what other people tell you and are only on here to give your negative views every chance you get. You don't like the game, we get it. Don't play.

I, for one, see many similarities this game provides while cleaning up an awful mess that the CCG was. And yes, it was a mess. People quit all over the place for simple reasons as the CCG kept changing core rules ever couple of years. And you are complaining that the LCG is changing the rules now?? What a hypocrite. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Sparks Duh said:

I, for one, see many similarities this game provides while cleaning up an awful mess that the CCG was. And yes, it was a mess. People quit all over the place for simple reasons as the CCG kept changing core rules ever couple of years. 

Completely BS. There's even thread in this forum where people tell why they left. Ruleset isn't a most important fact. man, "i leave a game because of goldscrew!" - what a nonsense! Have you ever heard such excuse? You completely miss a fact overall boredom for playing something too long, changing place, money issues,  lack of time, too many other games in the market, loosing playing friends etc. Even rotation/new_edition that was pivot for entering/returning players was also excuse to leave becasue it ended some "chapter". 

You can't call Heartstone a (refreshed) MtG even if these game share many similiarities. 

 

Edited by kempy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sparks Duh said:

...

When I point out 1 in just only 4 differences being that one the only game mechanic change from a previous design when you point out only one vague similarity with the old, game mechanic wise, and vague because we don't have much information to support your "epic battle to destroy provinces", when said provinces are not destroyed anymore (since they keep providing cards once "broken")... but you're surely hasty enough to tell me I don't have enough information to argue my points... seems coherent! :D

Saying this L5R is a straight port from the old is like me saying Pokemon CCG is a straight port from M:TG, both games have a deck with 60 cards, both draw 7 at first turn, both have Creatures, and attachments, and effects... but I'm not that dense to tell both games are similar because lesser similarities when mechanicaly are not even close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, oDESGOSTO said:

When I point out 1 in just only 4 differences being that one the only game mechanic change from a previous design when you point out only one vague similarity with the old, game mechanic wise, and vague because we don't have much information to support your "epic battle to destroy provinces", when said provinces are not destroyed anymore (since they keep providing cards once "broken")... but you're surely hasty enough to tell me I don't have enough information to argue my points... seems coherent! :D

Saying this L5R is a straight port from the old is like me saying Pokemon CCG is a straight port from M:TG, both games have a deck with 60 cards, both draw 7 at first turn, both have Creatures, and attachments, and effects... but I'm not that dense to tell both games are similar because lesser similarities when mechanicaly are not even close.

Sure... but I was just arguing in the same terms as you were. You keep arguing about things you have no idea how it plays out as if you know for fact. I'm giving it back to ya in that same fashion. You can dish it out but not take it huh? You're one of THOSE people. Whatever... I'm done with you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, kempy said:

Completely BS. There's even thread in this forum where people tell why they left. Ruleset isn't a most important fact. man, "i leave a game because of goldscrew!" - what a nonsense! Have you ever heard such excuse? You completely miss a fact overall boredom for playing something too long, changing place, money issues,  lack of time, too many other games in the market, loosing playing friends etc. Even rotation/new_edition that was pivot for entering/returning players was also excuse to leave becasue it ended some "chapter". 

 

 

I said it was a reason... not the only reason. Try and keep up, bro!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sparks Duh said:

Sure... but I was just arguing in the same terms as you were. You keep arguing about things you have no idea how it plays out as if you know for fact. I'm giving it back to ya in that same fashion. You can dish it out but not take it huh? You're one of THOSE people. Whatever... I'm done with you. 

I guess we all have a pretty idea of how things will work in this game... dunno about you but a seasoned xCG player will pretty much make the big picture out of what FFG gave us.

For me, regarding the old game and looking into this one, I see many things that will not work the same. As for Netrunner it was pretty much the same game. But if you insist this will be the same, good for you. Have fun playing the Card Game in Rokugan LCG. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here we have people trying to persuade other people that new l5r is different from old l5r.

I don't know why or what is the point, but the tears do make my soup salty enough, and that is a plus.

All joking aside, we all know where is odesgosto's and kempy's critisicism is coming from (and i consider it legit and applaud kempy for remaining a member of the community) but since the game is not coming back, i dont really see the point of these discussions, other than voicing an opinion. Nobody is going to change anybody's mind.

Also, disagree with it as you want, the l5r lcg has mechanically and flavorfully alot in common with the ccg and has overall, kept the spirit and feeling of the original game. You can disagree until the heat death of the universe with this, but you will be wrong. And bitter.

Edited by Dovla

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't say it's fanboyism vs pessimism. I don't go around and play all the FFG games because I'm a fanboy. In fact, the only FFG game I play is SW: Destiny. I find it fun opening booster packs. You could say I'm a fanboy of CCGs, however. And I couldn't fault anyone that draws that conclusion. 

My defense and general positive attitude towards the new5r is based more on my excitement to have the game back in my life as well as all the friends I've made playing it. Sure, it looks to be a complete overhaul of the original game, but what I've noticed is that there are enough similarities in it that make me want to try it out. At least for the sake of being able to play l5r again and meeting up with friends who play. Who knows if I actually like it when it comes out. Maybe the points people are making about different mechanics being stupid are true. I have no idea at this point... and I'm not gonna argue (maybe just a little like above to make a point) one way or the other until I can actually play and see for myself. I think I'm a good enough gamer to look at the big picture and see if I'm gonna like something before playing it. And I'm a big enough person to admit when I'm wrong. Hell, I can admit not liking Destiny when I first saw it previewed. It seemed clunky and very luck based with adding dice to a card game. I was like... yeah this isn't gonna be for me at all. Then I played some games and was proven wrong. I'm not without faults even tho I like to think I am. lol. The biggest hurdle, for me, is that I have to get passed my dislike of LCGs in order to play L5R again. I can go through and list all the reasons I hate LCGs, but that's for a different discussion and I'm pretty sure I've mentioned them at different times that people know my stance on them by now. Does the game intrigue me enough to give it a try? Absolutely! Is it good enough for me to keep playing an LCG after I play some games?? I have no idea yet. Can't really answer until I've played. But I'd say that the chance of me to continue playing is high... mainly for the reasons I've mentioned. I've told people from the start. If the game is fun, has good mechanics, and is well balanced, I will play. So far, I can only attest to the mechanics portion... and I can only go in to speculative detail on that. It seems like the mechanics are good to me, but until I play, I can't give a definitive answer at all. Seeing a LOT of people getting excited about the game is getting me more excited. As that means lots of people are wanting to play the game. That means more potential friends to come together and play. And that is what I'm looking forward to the most about new5r. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the game does not... reincarnate/resurrect the game in my area, the game may be the best thing since sliced bread and I could still not play it. Honestly, that worries me much more than it being a new game.

Plus I see "new L5R based game" better than "No L5R game at all". At this point, I will have more chances of people wanting to play with the new lifeblood of the LCG rather than sticking to my old collection.

And L5R CCG just run out of Fate points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of it will come down to, when playing it, whether Nu5R is "based on a true story" (i.e. there was a house where people were murdered) or "inspired by a true story "(i.e. there was a house where people were murdered BY GHOSTS), in regards to how it feels vis-a-vis Old5R.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dovla said:

I don't know why or what is the point, but the tears do make my soup salty enough, and that is a plus.

Indeed, and the funny thing is that some who hate the game now might end up enjoying it and viceversa.

I liked the old L5R a lot. Otherwise I wouldn't have played from early Jade till Emperor (skipped Gold and end of Lotus though and finally bowed out during celestial)

It did have it's problems though, depending on the the edition of course. Too often playing vs a Enlightment deck was a coin flip with almost no interaction, Mil vs Mil could snowball rapidly and honour vs dishonour often resulted into stalemates and/or timed games. And that's only talking about the matchups.  This is a hyperbole but for me, talking as a Crane Player, perhaps the pinacle of L5R was Mil vs Defensive honour, all the other matchups were less well implemented than this one.

Is it sad to see the old game dissapear? Offcourse, but then again, VTES, Netrunner and several other CCG have "died" but are still played to this day.  Even some LCG are already dead like Warhammer Invasion, Conquest and CoC but their are still meta's out there playing these games. If enough people are willing old L5R can live on.

Personally i'm looking forward to the new edition. The changes they want to implement give player's lots of choices. Piloting skill will matter a lot in this game because each choice has consequences throughout the game.

Did they remove stuff I didn't expect: Yes! Did they keep stuff I didn't expect: Yes!

I'm looking forward to playing a game of new L5R.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Wintersong said:

If the game does not... reincarnate/resurrect the game in my area, the game may be the best thing since sliced bread and I could still not play it. Honestly, that worries me much more than it being a new game.

Plus I see "new L5R based game" better than "No L5R game at all". At this point, I will have more chances of people wanting to play with the new lifeblood of the LCG rather than sticking to my old collection.

And L5R CCG just run out of Fate points.

I think this helps explain a lot about the changes.  Yes, the LCG appears to be a different game mechanically from the CCG, which puts off some of the veterans, but that's only a part of who FFG is trying to reach.  I know some veterans who thought two years was too long, and decided they were quitting L5R regardless of what the LCG looked like.  I also know there are some who decided they'd give it a chance regardless.  I imagine that the number of veterans who are basing their decision of whether or not to return on how similar the new game is to the old is actually rather small.

But then, on the other hand, you also have people who have never played, or perhaps even heard of, L5R.  This is a much larger market, if it can be tapped, and so FFG probably decided that if traditional mechanics conflicted with smooth gameplay, smooth gameplay should win.  Personally, I applaud their decision not to get so focused on keeping the mechanics identical that they risk the gameplay suffering.  I don't yet know if it'll pay off, but I'm glad they're willing to try, at least.  Whether or not it "feels like L5R," as some have said, will probably be very dependent on whether the person in question thinks L5R is defined more by its mechanics or its lore.  Mechanically, the game will be very different.  Lore-ally, we don't know, but I haven't yet seen anything that seems drastically anti-Rokugan.

Speaking of the mechanics, I'm personally not bothered by most of them, simply because I play a lot of different games, with drastically different rules.  Just because the rules are different doesn't mean they'll automatically be worse.  So far, the only thing that I'm a little skeptical about is the relatively low number of turns they expect games to go (3-6, wasn't it?), because I tend to prefer playing longer games.  However, others have pointed out that redoing the rules means that we probably won't need 2-3 turns of just skipping straight to Dynasty and buying Holdings, so that probably translates closer to 5-9 turns of the old game.  Since we also don't know how action-packed turns will be able to be, 3-6 turns could still be a very good experience, so I'm not about to complain about it!  Not just yet, at least.  ;-)

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.


×
×
  • Create New...