TylerTT

LCG format could use a change

90 posts in this topic

4 hours ago, Foxtrot Four said:

This is my two cents.. When L5R was a CCG they came out with direct to player sets The Shadow's Embrace, Forgotten Legacy, and Death at Koten. Each ran the player around $100-$150, BUT! This is my theory and this is where things get... costly, but, good.

I think instead of $15 per month over 6 months, I think what they should do instead is drop Three Boxes per year. Have 150 cards per box, much like Magic, and Old L5R, and you cycle them out at the same rate. So In two years those boxes will rotate out. I think the biggest complaint about the LCG format is the stagnation of the meta over years and years. Fast Advance is still THE deck in Netrunner. Runners change like my socks but still, Corp never changes no matter what fancy cards come out. So imagine "Netrunner: Genesis" and having ALL 160 cards in that set for $100 flat. Then 6 months later "Netrunner: Spin Cycle", and you drop the "Deluxe Box" idea as a whole because with 240 cards coming out every year and spacing them out accordingly you don't need to drop a deluxe box. Then next year you drop Netrunner: Lunar, and Netrunner: SanSan. Then the year after that, Netrunner: Mumbad, and Netrunner: Flashpoint, and then next year Genesis and Spin Cycle drop off immediately. Then as those sets rotate out. This allows less playtesting and less intensive playtesting as people have to keep upwards of 1,000 cards in mind. They can really go nutso with some of the card design. I would give it a shot.

This plan means the meta stays stale for longer. With more frequent releases, you at least have the chance to see the meta get shaken up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The big thing and I've been thinking about this for a while, Magic has these cycles where keywords come in and fade out, over and over again, and because they can phase out any keyword they don't like or think has gotten stale they have so much more freedom to innovate in strange and interesting ways without having to weigh the entirety of the last 8 sets against it. a 10 year cycles is WAY too long. That's just simply the way I see it. 4 years might be worth looking at. That way keywords can come and go and the meta will always be changing. Fast Advance is STILL to This Day, the ONLY corp deck worth playing in Netrunner, after 6 years. Is that a problem with the core mechanics of Corp decks? Maybe, but who's to say? The cost of maintenance is pretty low so I feel like upping the market maintenance value isn't uncalled for. Also shorter cycles allows for Legacy to become a thing. It will allow greater risk, and greater reward in card design as opposed always playing it safe because if you accidentally create a stupid powerful card just wait it out, it will be on it's way out the door soon. Unless it becomes broken powerful, but that comes with the risk of design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Foxtrot Four said:

The big thing and I've been thinking about this for a while, Magic has these cycles where keywords come in and fade out, over and over again, and because they can phase out any keyword they don't like or think has gotten stale they have so much more freedom to innovate in strange and interesting ways without having to weigh the entirety of the last 8 sets against it. a 10 year cycles is WAY too long. That's just simply the way I see it. 4 years might be worth looking at. That way keywords can come and go and the meta will always be changing. Fast Advance is STILL to This Day, the ONLY corp deck worth playing in Netrunner, after 6 years. Is that a problem with the core mechanics of Corp decks? Maybe, but who's to say? The cost of maintenance is pretty low so I feel like upping the market maintenance value isn't uncalled for. Also shorter cycles allows for Legacy to become a thing. It will allow greater risk, and greater reward in card design as opposed always playing it safe because if you accidentally create a stupid powerful card just wait it out, it will be on it's way out the door soon. Unless it becomes broken powerful, but that comes with the risk of design.

Netrunner already rotates every 4 years or so. Keywords do show up and disappear in cycles. Like Consumer Grade in Mumbad.

And Fast Advance isn't the only deck worth playing in Netrunner. There is asset spam, Glacier, Scorched Earth/Boom, and Rigshooter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/16/2017 at 11:12 AM, Kakita Shiro said:

This plan means the meta stays stale for longer. With more frequent releases, you at least have the chance to see the meta get shaken up.

How often is the meta really shaken up in any LCG now? Do the top decks change or are there incremental buffs that when coupled with player boredom just give the appearance of meta shake ups?

16 hours ago, Radix2309 said:

Netrunner already rotates every 4 years or so. Keywords do show up and disappear in cycles. Like Consumer Grade in Mumbad.

And Fast Advance isn't the only deck worth playing in Netrunner. There is asset spam, Glacier, Scorched Earth/Boom, and Rigshooter.

Has Netrunner rotated anything out? Is 4 years good enough, or should it be shortened? With cycle rotation and evergreen products, we're only ever truly down 100 cards, and that's only for a month. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, qwertyuiop said:

How often is the meta really shaken up in any LCG now? Do the top decks change or are there incremental buffs that when coupled with player boredom just give the appearance of meta shake ups?

Has Netrunner rotated anything out? Is 4 years good enough, or should it be shortened? With cycle rotation and evergreen products, we're only ever truly down 100 cards, and that's only for a month. 

AGOT gets a shake up every once in a while. Especially with the new Targ cards that gave Targ a huge revival.

I think 4 years may be too much, maybe rotate with the 6th cycle, instead of 8.

And rotation removes 200 cards at a time. The upcoming rotation for Netrunner will change a lot with several mainstays dissappearing like the 3/2s and Jackson Howard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Radix2309 said:

AGOT gets a shake up every once in a while. Especially with the new Targ cards that gave Targ a huge revival.

I think 4 years may be too much, maybe rotate with the 6th cycle, instead of 8.

And rotation removes 200 cards at a time. The upcoming rotation for Netrunner will change a lot with several mainstays dissappearing like the 3/2s and Jackson Howard.

Not to mention that rotations will then recur every 15 months or so after that. It's not like the meta won't change except for every four years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the only issue with the LCG format is really just the buy in price after the game has been out for a while. Still, it's significantly less than buying a single deck for Magic but LCGs sort of have to target that consumer base that doesn't like the cost of MTG (Not that it's the only reason play LCGs but certainly a major selling point).  

If they are still doing rotation the way I remember you could have 7 data/chapter/dynasty (whatever) packs + core set+ deluxe expansions. 

If you are looking to get into the game and wanting to be competitive that's a lot to buy into., right now that's ~ $450 for AGOT as we sit with more coming. For Android closer to $700 right now (I think).  Granted, maybe you can probably make a competitive deck without buying everything but if you're new to the game you might not know that or even which ones to buy to build a competitive deck.  Perhaps, we as players need to come up with some suggested decklists for competitive decks that list which sets you'll need to complete the deck. 

Either way, you almost certainly will need 3x core for most LCG and handful of packs. That's still in the $175-$200 range to build a good deck. Again, not a gripe for me as I'm used to MTG prices but I can see where it could be a turn-off. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/4/2017 at 1:36 PM, TylerTT said:

They already have a pattern of dropping sales.

The games launch to massive fan fair and are hot products for a while but then drop and then eventually slow down.

Obviously new games are exciting in their own right but I think the high rate of sales and popularity at the start has something to do with the play value of a core set, players are very excited by a core set and want to add cards to it but then eventually that excitement winds down and the design space gets cluttered and the packs become a monthly tax that only gives you a few new playable cards each month.

Come to think of it, games like magic do new "core" sets all the time.

Actually, MTG hasn't done a core set in almost 3 years. They said they have one planned for 2018 though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SlackerHacker said:

I think the only issue with the LCG format is really just the buy in price after the game has been out for a while. Still, it's significantly less than buying a single deck for Magic but LCGs sort of have to target that consumer base that doesn't like the cost of MTG (Not that it's the only reason play LCGs but certainly a major selling point).  

If they are still doing rotation the way I remember you could have 7 data/chapter/dynasty (whatever) packs + core set+ deluxe expansions. 

If you are looking to get into the game and wanting to be competitive that's a lot to buy into., right now that's ~ $450 for AGOT as we sit with more coming. For Android closer to $700 right now (I think).  Granted, maybe you can probably make a competitive deck without buying everything but if you're new to the game you might not know that or even which ones to buy to build a competitive deck.  Perhaps, we as players need to come up with some suggested decklists for competitive decks that list which sets you'll need to complete the deck. 

Either way, you almost certainly will need 3x core for most LCG and handful of packs. That's still in the $175-$200 range to build a good deck. Again, not a gripe for me as I'm used to MTG prices but I can see where it could be a turn-off. 

You can build a good deck with 3x core, and whichever faction deluxe you want. They aren't completely competitive, but they form the core of a decent deck. 

And there is the community to help you with which packs to buy. You just buy a couple for the cards you need, then occasionally buy them whenever you have spare cash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Radix2309 said:

You can build a good deck with 3x core, and whichever faction deluxe you want. They aren't completely competitive, but they form the core of a decent deck. 

And there is the community to help you with which packs to buy. You just buy a couple for the cards you need, then occasionally buy them whenever you have spare cash.

Right, again, you can make playable decks out of three cores and a deluxe but if you want to have a chance of winning a single competitive match you're likely to need some packs (i would say 3-5 at a minimum for most LCGs). 

Share this post


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

Right, again, you can make playable decks out of three cores and a deluxe but if you want to have a chance of winning a single competitive match you're likely to need some packs (i would say 3-5 at a minimum for most LCGs). 

Yeah. Probably 3 packs or so. 3 Cores, 1 deluxe, and 3-5 packs would add up to about $200.

It also depends on the LCG. AGOT is less dependent on certain cards than Netrunner. Characters are more interchangable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, SlackerHacker said:

I think the only issue with the LCG format is really just the buy in price after the game has been out for a while. Still, it's significantly less than buying a single deck for Magic but LCGs sort of have to target that consumer base that doesn't like the cost of MTG (Not that it's the only reason play LCGs but certainly a major selling point). 

IMO, it's not just the buy in price, although that is relevant.  It's the buy in effort.  To buy in to Netrunner, for example, you currently have 48 distinct products you need to purchase.  When rotation hits, that will decrease by 11 leaving 37 distinct products, which will slowly build up to 48 again, then drop to 37, etc.  due to rotation. 

Further, each new "big box" set (see: terminal Directive) permanently adds to this number. 

Even if someone sets aside $800 to buy in, it's a lot of time and effort to find and acquire all the individual products you need to acquire.

There is no "introductory" product that can get you in and playing at a reasonable level without that time and effort.  And, FFG seems completely uninterested in making such a product, for whatever business reason they may have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want a competitive deck right off the bat, you can buy a champion's deck (you'll still need a core set for the rules and tokens). There are 2 pairs for ANR (Corp and Runner, each for 2015 and 2016) and 1 deck for AGoTv2 (2016). I assume they'll publish some for L5R after a while (my guess is starting in 2018, once the card pool has grown a bit).

Laurence J Sinclair likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For better or for worse, the "introductory product" is the Core Set. Hopefully Core Set 2.0 wil A) actually exist and B) do a better job of being this thing.

However, what you said here...

Quote

To buy in to Netrunner, for example, you currently have 48 distinct products you need to purchase

... is objectively false. I just punched up the runner deck that won the Dallas Regional: 17 products (and only a single copy of the core set and only two deluxe sets to boot.)  Its corp side had 15 products, and two of those were extra core sets, at least one of which you could probably obviate by borrowing that third SanSan from a friend.

I've been playing the heck out of the 16-product, single-Core-set runner deck that took 2nd at Colorado Regionals. Its corp side had 17 products, also only one Core Set.

So no, you don't have to go out and buy everything all at once. What you should instead do is apply even a little bit of thoughtfulness: to start with a single core set and then pick & choose which directions you want to branch out in, and build your collection intelligently.

Laurence J Sinclair likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FFG do many products that i like but you simply cant do them all, trying to keep pace with all the expansions is mental, these are the ones that i liked, i was doing them all but have finally knocked most of them on the head, especially LCG's.

Elder Sign  =  Very good, will probably keep this one going as its cheap enough and not every month!

Mansions of Madness = I dont like the figures at all, very cheap and meh, most of the expense is the figures so i decided not to continue this one.

Eldritch Horror = My main game, i have it all in a nicely made chest but........ it has now become more of the same and no new ideas that are worthwhile, i will grab a expansion if and when i feel like it.

LOTRLCG = I really liked this one, but i could not keep up, packs i missed were crazy prices online as well, got the saga, now forgetting the rest, packs come out way too often.

AHLCG = Ill upset the crowd, this one is very overrated, clunky, clumsy, boring and will be like LOTR, miss a pack you will fall behind and they will become expensive, certainly running both is a crazy idea. Stopped.

A little note, Warhammer the Adventure Card Game was sooo good, yet they stopped this one soon as it was released, the mechanics and gameplay was so much better, use this system in another LCG instead of the awkward AHLCG.

 

The above is a example,of what i was playing and all of them have regular releases,especially LCG's!  your time and effort is certainly put to the test and so is your bank account. Too much too regular noone can keep up!

Only option is to stop doing it, out of it all ill probably get ES and maybe EH, maybe, there are no LCG's worth me doing anymore either unless something like WACG comes along.

 

I feel like i can now breath a sigh of relief lol, have fun all!

 

Laurence J Sinclair likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me the selling point of the current model is that every time I want to get something for my favorite game, I get to buy something entirely new and I only need to buy 1 of it.  I love that.  Buy an expansion pack for LotR, get 3 copies of everything, get a new adventure, never EVER have to buy it again for any reason.  That's perfect!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/21/2017 at 11:53 AM, Grimwalker said:

For better or for worse, the "introductory product" is the Core Set. Hopefully Core Set 2.0 wil A) actually exist and B) do a better job of being this thing.

However, what you said here...

... is objectively false. I just punched up the runner deck that won the Dallas Regional: 17 products (and only a single copy of the core set and only two deluxe sets to boot.)  Its corp side had 15 products, and two of those were extra core sets, at least one of which you could probably obviate by borrowing that third SanSan from a friend.

I've been playing the heck out of the 16-product, single-Core-set runner deck that took 2nd at Colorado Regionals. Its corp side had 17 products, also only one Core Set.

So no, you don't have to go out and buy everything all at once. What you should instead do is apply even a little bit of thoughtfulness: to start with a single core set and then pick & choose which directions you want to branch out in, and build your collection intelligently.

Sure, and I don't *have* to buy the expensive magic cards to make a deck!  I could just buy 60 lands and it would be legal. 

No, to buy in to Netrunner you need 48 distinct products. 

To buy in to magic's most popular format you need, at most, 6 distinct products.

Edit: The point, despite the pedantics, is not "you cannot compete without buying every product", I am fully aware that you can buy just enough cards to get a good deck.  But, you're asking *new* players to put the cart before the horse.  They aren't going to go do a ton of research, figure out what they want, then buy in.  They are going to buy in and figure out the cards.  And currently, with 48 products required for a full buy in, that process is daunting.

Edited by BithLord

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, BithLord said:

No, to buy in to Netrunner you need 48 distinct products. 

To buy in to magic's most popular format you need, at most, 6 distinct products.

Edit: The point, despite the pedantics, is not "you cannot compete without buying every product", I am fully aware that you can buy just enough cards to get a good deck.  But, you're asking *new* players to put the cart before the horse.  They aren't going to go do a ton of research, figure out what they want, then buy in.  They are going to buy in and figure out the cards.  And currently, with 48 products required for a full buy in, that process is daunting.

Do you want to play the game and have fun, or do you want to have everything right away, or do you want buy a top tier competitive deck?  These are all very different goals with very different buying requirements.  Netrunner LCG is in a fairly unique position in its category; a player only needs a single copy of the core to fully enjoy the game.  To be competitive, does one really need a third of the total product release? Probably not, though a good grasp on the game is needed, and a new player won't immediately have the skills required.  This being true, does a new player need to buy everything? Nah.

I assume you're saying Standard is Magic's most popular format.  What six distinct products are you speaking of? Six packs? Six fat packs? Six intro decks? A combination of these? Is one of the six products earmarked for replacement by another upcoming sixth product when it is rotated out?  Are these six products enough to allow a player to compete at a reasonably high level?  How many copies of these six distinct products does a player need?  Is a player constantly trading, buying, or selling singles out of these six distinct products?  Sorry to come at you like this, but there's a lot more to the Magic buying process than grabbing six products and running with it. 

In LCGs a cycle more less adds up to a CCG set, so really it's more like one cycle of six packs equals one product. I understand this may seem confusing for new players.  I've posted this elsewhere, maybe in this thread, but it's a trade off. Delayed release, lower overall cost (even accounting for trades), and full playsets instead of higher cost, more waste, but a single release. Is it worth taking the time to use the internet to search out cycle info for a LCG rather than spending hundreds of additional dollars for the convenience of CCGs? 

 

Toqtamish likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/6/2017 at 3:43 PM, BithLord said:

No, to buy in to Netrunner you need 48 distinct products. 

To buy in to magic's most popular format you need, at most, 6 distinct products.

You're comparing apples and oranges. Buying into Netrunner's full card pool enables you to compete at the top tier of competitive play. Try doing that in Magic for Netrunner's buy-in price. 

If you want to play Netrunner casually, you are absolutely free to choose your level of involvement, to look up a deck, buy the necessary components for that deck, and play it. (You think people don't walk up to the counter of a game shop with a shopping list of MTG cards they don't own for a deck they want to build? Come on.)

I maintain that you're objectively wrong about the buy-in to a mature LCG.

Edited by Grimwalker
words
Toqtamish likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a cool option. They need to do that faster though. Netrunner already died. It's much easier to keep a thing alive than it is to resurrect it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now