Jump to content

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Yogo Gohei said:

This whole thread is goofy.

It appears to be two (2!) sourpusses raging against a system that everyone else thinks is rather brilliant.

Having potential concerns about something is "raging" now? Please.

Like I said, I'm interested to see how all of this plays out, but to say that the system doesn't restrict player choice is simply incorrect.

I do like that it is one way to prevent people from simply playing the best Role available, everyone playing Seeker of Earth or whatever, but I don't like that it does so at the cost of deck flexibility.

But you cannot, on the one hand, claim that the Roles change so little that it doesn't matter and on the other hand claim that the locked in Role selection is a way to shake up the meta over time.

Edited by Danwarr

Share this post


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

Having potential concerns about something is "raging" now? Please.

Like I said, I'm interested to see how all of this plays out, but to say that the system doesn't restrict player choice is simply incorrect.

I do like that it is one way to prevent people from simply playing the best Role available, everyone playing Seeker of Earth or whatever, but I don't like that it does so at the cost of deck flexibility.

But you cannot, on the one hand, claim that the Roles change so little that it doesn't matter and on the other hand claim that the locked in Role selection is a way to shake up the meta over time.

Roles were never supposed to be your choice. They are just a meta shift from year to year - something that is much needed in living card games which tend to become very very stale. 

If it helps you, think about it as an errata that comes out every year to shake up the best decks in the meta. This is essentialy what happens in netrunner or even mtg recently(banning of cards like emrakul and the copter). If we didn't have this mechanism I can tell you from my other lcg experiences - there would be maybe 3 top clans and it would change on around 2 year basis, and not by much. 

I think this is a very elegant solution as compared to straight up brute force nerfs.

And again you assume you are supposed to have the choice of role - you are not. They are not part of deckbuilding but balancing/keeping the game fresh - assuring that even though not all clans might be at the top at one time, there would be at least some changes from year to year how they play and where they place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They change just enough to be meaningful.

On monday, we did not even know about this at all and were not complaining about things being restricting. I am missing how learning about a new card type with 0 downsides is now super restricting, just because it doesn't exactly match your expectations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose if you view it through the lens of 'I could choose any of these roles for myself based on whatever deck I would to build' then it could be construed as restricting player choice. But I don't think that ever would have been the case. 

If you view it as 'oh now I have the opportunity to splash more cards/provinces and get some fate based on how I play' then it's not restrictive at all and does allow for more flexibility. But I think starting from the viewpoint that the game would've been designed so that any player could pick any role at any time isn't likely. I doubt they would have included a mechanic like that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Yogo Gohei said:

On monday, we did not even know about this at all and were not complaining about things being restricting. I am missing how learning about a new card type with 0 downsides is now super restricting, just because it doesn't exactly match your expectations.

We've known about Roles for awhile since the French leak at least. The specific text is new, but we've known the existence has at least been related to deck building.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ishi Tonu said:

Agree to disagree on this.

In a perfect world we would all play every event and get free cards to play with so we could have a true champion that has proven themselves the best.  This is simply not possible so well have to settle for those that are dedicated enough to put their money and time into it and emerge as the top performer of their clan, I'm ok with them getting a choice that I likely would have made anyways if I had places the same for that clan.

How are we disagreeing?  You're acknowledging that exactly what I'm saying is true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Yogo Gohei said:

This whole thread is goofy.

It appears to be two (2!) sourpusses raging against a system that everyone else thinks is rather brilliant.

Yep.  I think it goes back to the idea that if you dislike the idea of players having an effect on the game, L5R is not the game for you.  And that is okay.

Just in my clan, the Phoenix had a Stronghold corrupted (Imperial Sacred Temple of the Phoenix to Emerald and later versions), were then decimated and allowed shugenjas from other clans to join (DJH Eternal Halls of the Shiba), and then at the end of Gold gained a Shogun AND the Sezaru.  All based on player choices!  Heck, the top of clan of the 2006 World Championship (which I believe was in Europe) determined which special items the clans would get for the next block, and I don't recall this level of agony then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Yogo Gohei said:

This whole thread is goofy.

It appears to be two (2!) sourpusses raging against a system that everyone else thinks is rather brilliant.

Nice. Name calling. Being a bigger ****** doesn't necessarily make your point correct. The way I see this thread, its people discussing their opinions and you calling people names. Goes to show how you treat people with different opinions than you.

Here are some personal concerns:

1. People say if you don't play at Worlds/GenCon and place, you are inherently a less skilled player. Yeah, because there is absolutely no other barriers stopping you from going right? Sure the common "I don't have the money/time to do it" excuse is there, but when you factor that this "Worlds/GenCon" is held in a country where your passport is not strong enough to go to, then that's different. I have the money/time, and I feel I can compete with everyone, but too bad you're a second class citizen and we won't give you a visa to play cards in our country. Being dismissive of a problem just because you don't experience it just makes you an elitist schmuck.

2. There are other competitive games on a smaller scale, and that's a little more accessible for other foreigners. We've had alot of "Big" events (like 120+ players), just not as big as Worlds/Gencon, and I've participated in them (even placed or got top of clan in some, HEY!). We have our own meta game here, because players here are more loyal to their clans. I don't begrudge a placer in an event of his/her choice. I wasn't even thinking of some troll trying to gimp a specific clan. What I'm thinking is the absolute difference in metagame that one players choice, though optimal to him, won't be optimal to everyone. The mere fact that they forcing that option to everyone is completely dismissive of the said difference in metagame when they could have just allowed people to play the role that they want so that everyone is essentially playing an optimized deck. I accept clan restrictions. **** even influences, it makes game design easier to balance. Adding another restriction just because of flavor is highly unnecessary in the grand scheme of things. It's like adding "Oh Phoenix and Lion are at war right now so Phoenix players can't splash Lion ok?"

3. People are focusing on the Role card's existence rather than the mere choice (or lack thereof). Opting to use a Role card is always advantageous, that is true. Locking everybody else from using a specific card because "we can't think of any other prize to give to top of clan finishers" is outrageous. Give 'em pins, playmats, cards, rolex watches, I don't care. Give them a hand in my deckbuilding when they are not even part of our metagame is stretching it. Sure I can play casually with my friends, and we can instate a house rule allowing everyone to play with their chosen Role in my local FLGS. At the end of the day though, we'll still participate in sanctioned tourneys but whatever decks you gleam from those casual games would be useless since they're not gonna appear on the competitive scene anyway. It's constrictive, and that's the argument I presented from the beginning.

4. Winning top of clan in an event doesn't exactly make you the best in that clan though. It doesn't even make you better than everyone who played your clan at that specific event. What makes you a great player is how consistent you place in big events. Bad pairings do come up, as well as good ones. People sometimes even give wins for different reasons (hey I'm already in the top X so you can have this game, among other things). The fact that you can anticipate the metagame every event, and play at the highest level every time even against bad match-ups is what makes a great player. Having to decide something that is far reaching because you placed 45th or were one of 2 Crab players in one event is not a reflection of your skill as a player.

At the end, we're all going to play with our designated roles. Whether you like playing with them or not is something that's going to vary. You take the good with the bad, doesn't change the fact that it's good or bad though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Buhallin said:

How are we disagreeing?  You're acknowledging that exactly what I'm saying is true.

I'm not arguing the truth of your stance as there is indeed some truth to it.  I simply have no problem with it being the way it is and you do.  So we are at an impass as far as that is concerned.  I was acknowledging that so we can move on from it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, YasukiKaito said:

But I think starting from the viewpoint that the game would've been designed so that any player could pick any role at any time isn't likely. I doubt they would have included a mechanic like that. 

Uhm... This is exactly what the game is outside of sanctioned tournaments. So yeah, they actually did design exactly that game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Yogo Gohei said:

They change just enough to be meaningful.

On monday, we did not even know about this at all and were not complaining about things being restricting. I am missing how learning about a new card type with 0 downsides is now super restricting, just because it doesn't exactly match your expectations.

So people weren't complaining about something they didn't know existed? I have no idea how that could come to pass... 

Saying you can just play without th advantage that everyone else has IS a restriction. The role cards are not neutral, they are a straight up advantage, and ignoring them is surrendering that advantage. i.e. It's a disadvantage. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ishi Tonu said:

I'm not arguing the truth of your stance as there is indeed some truth to it.  I simply have no problem with it being the way it is and you do.  So we are at an impass as far as that is concerned.  I was acknowledging that so we can move on from it.  

I don't necessarily have a problem with it. It's the reality of the world, and I'm fine with that.

Where I take exception is the idea that those winners are somehow proven superior to every other person who plays this game, in a way which justifies them dictating to those other players how they can play the game. They're not superior, any more than any other pay-to-win scheme declared a "winner" to be superior. They haven't proven themselves against the best, they've just proven themselves against those who can afford the entry fee.

And again, it is what it is. But delusional wannabe-LARPing about how I'm supposed to follow orders from some "best" player who's only the best because they could afford to go is just insulting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Buhallin said:

Uhm... This is exactly what the game is outside of sanctioned tournaments. So yeah, they actually did design exactly that game.

Oh - ok I apologize. I didn't realize that organized tournament play and casual play at your store were the same thing. My bad. 

Share this post


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

They haven't proven themselves against the best, they've just proven themselves against those who can afford the entry fee.

You're so right! How could the people who do the best at Worlds when competing against other kotei and grand kotei winners and hatamotos possibly be in the top tier of players. Inconceivable!!

I think it's a pretty reasonable idea that top of clan at worlds is one of the best players of that clan in the world, and has a thorough understanding of their clan within the meta. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Yogo Gohei said:

This whole thread is goofy.

It appears to be two (2!) sourpusses raging against a system that everyone else thinks is rather brilliant.

Seems like the most toxic and untrue comment I encountered in this thread and someone said that I basically should quit the game, because I poop in his cereals. I encountered 6 people that raised valid concernes in this thread and I highly doubt that everyone else likes the role mechanic, given that a lot of people don't visit this forum. The accuse that people are raging or are sourpusses is also strange. Not liking something doesn't mean that I am raging or that I have a negative outlook on the world. In Warhammer 40k Conquest there was a similar situation, where I said that printing Archon's Palace and Klaivex in the first two warpacks was a mistake and it completely unbalance the game. People reacted the same and called me sourpusses and that I raged because I play OP Space Marines and I don't want any other faction being as strong as them and I want to talk Conquest down because I like the Game of Thrones LCG. The actual truth was that I didn't really care, because unbalanced metas favor people that can evaluate the meta and the strengh of cards. So I switched to Kith and had a good time and I still think that WH40k Conquest is the best card game I have ever played.

5 hours ago, YasukiKaito said:

I suppose if you view it through the lens of 'I could choose any of these roles for myself based on whatever deck I would to build' then it could be construed as restricting player choice. But I don't think that ever would have been the case. 

If you view it as 'oh now I have the opportunity to splash more cards/provinces and get some fate based on how I play' then it's not restrictive at all and does allow for more flexibility. But I think starting from the viewpoint that the game would've been designed so that any player could pick any role at any time isn't likely. I doubt they would have included a mechanic like that. 

I don't think that it is construed. Game of Thrones has Agenda cards and while I don't think that the roles are as impactful as agenda cards, it works pretty similar.

4 hours ago, Asako Taiyo said:

Yep.  I think it goes back to the idea that if you dislike the idea of players having an effect on the game, L5R is not the game for you.  And that is okay.

Just in my clan, the Phoenix had a Stronghold corrupted (Imperial Sacred Temple of the Phoenix to Emerald and later versions), were then decimated and allowed shugenjas from other clans to join (DJH Eternal Halls of the Shiba), and then at the end of Gold gained a Shogun AND the Sezaru.  All based on player choices!  Heck, the top of clan of the 2006 World Championship (which I believe was in Europe) determined which special items the clans would get for the next block, and I don't recall this level of agony then.

I don't think that not liking an aspect of a game leads to a game not being for someone. Every game will have aspects that someone likes more and aspects that the same person likes less. At the bottom line it is important how much enjoyment you can get out of the game, not if you like every little thing about the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Zesu Shadaban said:

*stares at hornet's nest. Pulls out long stick and gives it a hard poke*

Role Cards are a tool of the wealthy elite to control and oppress the working class!

*runs away*

Role cards are obviously a Scorpion plot against 'right thinking ' samurai.??

...or maybe it's the Crane

I GOT IT!! ...Its Phoenix religious persecution. **** Fire Chickens ? ?

Edited by Kuni Katsuyoshi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I liked that it has the built in check/balance that the same role can't be chosen again.  If a clan ends up dominating the game "because of their role?" the world champion won't get to pick that role again leading to that domination for a second year again.  A year seems like a really long time,  but the card pool will evolve slower being an lcg. I too like the flavor of it,  but hope it won't impact the game in a huge negative way.

Having said all that,  it won't really effect me,  cause if I spend money on a game,  and I don't like an aspect of it,  I'll play it the way I want,  and "keep flying casual". :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Buhallin said:

Where I take exception is the idea that those winners are somehow proven superior to every other person who plays this game, in a way which justifies them dictating to those other players how they can play the game. They're not superior, any more than any other pay-to-win scheme declared a "winner" to be superior. They haven't proven themselves against the best, they've just proven themselves against those who can afford the entry fee.

And again, it is what it is. But delusional wannabe-LARPing about how I'm supposed to follow orders from some "best" player who's only the best because they could afford to go is just insulting.

This could be said of any large-scale competitive activity.

HEre is the thing, people can put in the resources, but you still have to compete. There may be better competitors who can't make it, but oh well. If you want the credit, you have to do it.

I compete in Brazilian jiu-jitsu. I'm sure there are a lot of high level guys who don't compete - it can be expensive. Guess who I'm going to more likely listen to when it comes to competitive BJJ? The guy who can't compete, or the one who shows up in the arena and fights?

 

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...