FFG AMA with Andrew Navarro

[Onidsen 571]

Hey everyone, there's a chance to ask the head of FFG Studios anything you want about any game! He'll be answering some of the questions on the FFG live stream this Friday

[General_Grievous 208]

Yes! And like other people's comments asking about LOTR. After 25 or so they get a ribbon noting them as popular and that may be how we can get it asked. I have one half way down on the third page that has got a fair bit of likes but could use some more if you want to show support and ask questions about LOTR LCG future.

[Bullroarer Took 996]

I’ll be honest: after watching him dodge questions after the In-Flight Report I’m not too hyped about hearing anything relevant.

[Durins_Father 146]

"Sure you can ask us anything! Doesn't mean you'll get answers though" -- FFG

[manoftomorrow010 1,119]

@General_Grievous

 

they answered you! He mentioned a "break" after the planned releases, which will carry through late 2020, then he said they would announce future content and a new "iteration" of the game, or something like that. But he stressed it was not a "second edition."

[Bullroarer Took 996]

I'm glad they answered the question and hat's off even though it wasn't necessarily what I wanted to hear.  If the next iteration is first or second age though that would be nice.

[soullos 147]

Next iteration of the game? At least it's not a second edition, but what could a "next iteration" mean? Slower release schedule like boxes only, no cycles? Crossovers with the digital offerings? Cleaned up rules, as a revised edition but fully compatible? New core set and player facing expansions like a premade deck ready to go and then quest packs similar to Marvel LCG? Return to "X" like expansions? Bundled content so there's less SKUs on the market? Competitive mode being default but expanded?

And them taking a break before the new iteration has my cynical self thinking they'll be shuffling around designers, maybe Caleb will jump ship to Marvel similar to what Matt did for Arkham? Hmm... I'm cautiously optimistic. And I guess this is the last cycle? Or do you think we'll see another one squeezed in before now and late 2020?

[General_Grievous 208]

3 hours ago, manoftomorrow010 said:

@General_Grievous

 

they answered you! He mentioned a "break" after the planned releases, which will carry through late 2020, then he said they would announce future content and a new "iteration" of the game, or something like that. But he stressed it was not a "second edition."

Well good to know but definitely sad, end of a journey. At least there is something else to look forward too whatever it is. And so, so happy it's not a second edition haha.

I feel like this is the final cycle just based on release times and the setting.

[sappidus 531]

His actual comments start at ~15:15. I encourage all to watch.

 

Edited September 5, 2019 by sappidus
corrected time

[John Constantine 967]

I'm actually sad it's not a second edition. This game is in dire need of second edition.

[Seastan 1,324]

9 minutes ago, John Constantine said:

I'm actually sad it's not a second edition. This game is in dire need of second edition.

I am really happy that it's not. I like the deep card pool that we have, and a 2.0 version would be severely lacking in deckbuilding options for many years.

[John Constantine 967]

1 minute ago, Seastan said:

I am really happy that it's not. I like the deep card pool that we have, and a 2.0 version would be severely lacking in deckbuilding options for many years.

But second edition wouldn't take your deep card pool away. Nothing stops you from playing first edition while second edition is developing. Plus, when game first release, they develop significantly faster than 1 adventure pack in 3 years like lotr lcg currently has, another very compelling reason why lotr should go for second edition.

[Seastan 1,324]

Just now, John Constantine said:

But second edition wouldn't take your deep card pool away. Nothing stops you from playing first edition while second edition is developing. Plus, when game first release, they develop significantly faster than 1 adventure pack in 3 years like lotr lcg currently has, another very compelling reason why lotr should go for second edition.

But the new cards would be incompatible with the old. So I could not make use of the wealth of 1.0 cards when making a 2.0 deck. By not making it 2.0, it means that the new cards will be a lot more fun to deckbuild with.

[Seastan 1,324]

And regarding the slower release pace, I'm actually OK with that. Because of the non-rotating card pool, every new set of player cards that comes out has a lot more deckbuilding combinations than the set that came before. And we've gotten to the point where it takes a really long time to explore all those combinations. For example, I play this game a lot, but still haven't touched Radagast yet because I'm still busy exploring a bunch of other card combos.

Then there's the really cool stuff they can do with a big card pool, like the new Contract card type. Such a thing wouldn't be possible for a 2.0 game for a long time.

Edit: And I'm aware of how the release cycle is faster at the beginning. I was playing this game from day 1. But it still took years for the deckbuilding to mature.

Edited August 31, 2019 by Seastan

[John Constantine 967]

6 minutes ago, Seastan said:

But the new cards would be incompatible with the old. So I could not make use of the wealth of 1.0 cards when making a 2.0 deck. By not making it 2.0, it means that the new cards will be a lot more fun to deckbuild with.

But you'll still have this giant wealth of 1.0 cards to deckbuild with? By not making it 2.0, they get stuck in the past and cannot sufficiently move forward. Not letting something improve so that you would have more toys to play with while you have endless supply of toys to play with is selfish.

Edited August 31, 2019 by John Constantine

[Seastan 1,324]

1 minute ago, John Constantine said:

But you'll still have this giant wealth of 1.0 cards to deckbuild with? By not making it 2.0, they get stuck in the past and cannot sufficiently move forward. Not letting something improve so that you would have more toys to play with while you have endless supply of toys to play with is selfish.

I've been watching the game improve for years, and that improvement has not plateaued, in my opinion. So I don't see myself as selfish (for that reason at least).

[John Constantine 967]

The things you're trying to pass as improvement is not the improvements the game needs. Not wanting to game to improve because you want to keep getting more cards for it with the already insane card pool is selfish, no matter what spin you'll try to put on it.

[General_Grievous 208]

To the video: Hahaha love that they processed it in the general Grievous voice hahaha

 

To this topic. I think second editions are terrible and a bit of a money grab. It's what pushed my wife and eventually me by extension away from X-Wing and it would do the same here for us. This the LOTR game we want and we are nowhere close to a broken crazy bloated game like many others become.

Edited August 31, 2019 by General_Grievous

[Seastan 1,324]

Just now, John Constantine said:

The things you're trying to pass as improvement is not the improvements the game needs. Not wanting to game to improve because you want to keep getting more cards for it with the already insane card pool is selfish, no matter what spin you'll try to put on it.

Well, I can say the same thing.

The improvements that could come with a 2.0 are not the improvements the game needs. Wanting the game to reset because you are personally unhappy with the game's direction etc. etc. 

[John Constantine 967]

3 minutes ago, Seastan said:

Well, I can say the same thing.

The improvements that could come with a 2.0 are not the improvements the game needs. Wanting the game to reset because you are personally unhappy with the game's direction etc. etc. 

Nah, broseph, if game resets, you still have the giant behemoth with years and years worth of content and gameplay. You don't lose anything, except maybe a few packs they still gonna maybe release after those already planned? And judging by FFG's other edition improvements, what you are saying is not a possibility, every existing new edition for a past game that I am aware of was a tremendous improvement, be it LCG or a board game.  So, if we used the selfishness scale for this situation, you're selfish by around 99/100, while I'm selfish by 1/100. I have most of the first edition purchased too, you know. I will too "lose" if they were to decide to release second edition. But it is right thing to do for the game to move forward.

[Radix2309 355]

Co-op LCGs have it even better for new editions. Old stuff is 100% playable. Just regard the game as coming to a natural end.

I see some 2nd editions as acceptable. Stuff like Thrones and X-wing where they were pioneers. It lets them work out the kinks they picked up while experimenting and really streamline things.

[Seastan 1,324]

20 minutes ago, John Constantine said:

But it is right thing to do for the game to move forward.

Thankfully, the head of FFG studios disagrees. According to him, the majority of the playerbase does not want a 2.0. Shouldn't demanding that you want personally, that most of the playerbase does not want, be the selfish position?

But to be clear, FFG doesn't owe me any product that I haven't paid for. Yet I want them continue the game forever. So in that sense, I am selfish. I can admit that.

[dalestephenson 1,482]

I'm very glad to hear that the new product after the "break" will be fully compatible, for the same reasons as Seastan.  While a new, incompatible version wouldn't "take away" anything from the vast amount of possibilities already in the system, it also would add not a whit.  It would be as irrelevant to this game as Journeys In Middle Earth or War of the Ring.

John Constantine is correct that the decision to make later content fully compatible *necessarily* precludes mechanical changes that could, in theory, produce a "better" LCG, and in that sense is preventing the 2.0 from being made.  We've already seen with the computer version that the freedom to depart from the established cardpool while retaining the artwork can result in a different game, quite possibily a superior game in the eyes of some.  But no matter how good it is mechanically, I don't see how the necessarily restricted card pool of a rebooted game can compete for my time with the vast options of the current game, and given that I can't see it attracting my money.  LOTR is my favorite IP, hands down, but if I'm going to spend on a new co-op LCG I'll try out the ugy-looking Marvel game.

I am, of course, selfishly putting my own interests ahead of John's interests, and he is doing the same to me.  FFG naturally will put its own interests first, which is why they're taking a "break" of unspecified duration instead of pumping out more content continually as I would prefer.

A break after planned releases through late 2020 does make it seem this is the last cycle, which increases the chances of the final quest actually being in Mordor.  (From the encounter sets I think there's no chance that a majority of the cycle will be there).  That makes me think we won't explore much of Rhun, and will leave at the break vast parts of Middle Earth still unexplored.

[Seastan 1,324]

4 minutes ago, dalestephenson said:

John Constantine is correct that the decision to make later content fully compatible *necessarily* precludes mechanical changes that could, in theory, produce a "better" LCG

I disagree with the word "necessarily" here. This "new, non-2.0 iteration" of the game could still include a list of card errata and mechanical changes that fix some legacy issues with the game while still maintaining backward compatibility. I'm not saying it will happen, but it is a possibility.

[dalestephenson 1,482]

True.  I'd be surprised if the new iteration didn't cause errata at a minimum, and I wouldn't be shocked if it was not, in fact, fully backwards compatible with the entirety of the cardpool -- For example, I could well imagine adding new mechanics that nothing in the existing cardpool is relevant to, resulting in new player cards that are useless against past quests, or mechanical changes that make some old player cards uesless against future quests.  He clearly doesn't know how large the changes from the "new iteration" would be, I get the impression that aside from the intention to produce a "new iteration" that is not a second edition, no thought has been given to it at all.

But the decision to make the new iteration not be a second edition *does* impose massive design constraints compared to a complete reboot.