I see people dropping more than the cost of the deluxe expansion and multiple chapter/monthly packs trying to get everything for several ccgs at individual releases, including the new Final Fantasy card game*. For me personally, I like spending less money on playsets of all the cards and, if I get additions like a campaign, cooperative, or solo experience, I'm perfectly fine with the set up.

*- It's very meh.

I get you probably have a problem with Kempy... and with me for that matter, but I don't give a **** what you think about me in all honesty.

You really have an interesting view of yourself if you think I have a problem with you.

I'm not buying that you don't care about my opinion of you given you had to resort to swearing to get your point across, but hey, keep on hatin' those tokens.

I get you probably have a problem with Kempy... and with me for that matter, but I don't give a **** what you think about me in all honesty.

keep on hatin' those tokens.

You know I will!!!

I like classical music. Hell maybe I might want to buy that deluxe set of CDs one day. But I sure as hell don't want to be forced in to buying that collection in order to eat a effin hotdog!

This is more like buying a package with a recording you like, but it also comes with a recording you hate.

You don't have to listen to the one you hate, but others might buy the package for that piece. And what makes the whole thing economically viable is that the consumer base is both you and those others.

I like classical music. Hell maybe I might want to buy that deluxe set of CDs one day. But I sure as hell don't want to be forced in to buying that collection in order to eat a effin hotdog!

This is more like buying a package with a recording you like, but it also comes with a recording you hate.

You don't have to listen to the one you hate, but others might buy the package for that piece. And what makes the whole thing economically viable is that the consumer base is both you and those others.

No, I don't think your analogy is correct. In this case, You have to buy a kind of deluxe box which has cards you need, but are part of something else you don't care about.

It's more like having to buy a CD which is part of a DIY opera kit... You only care about the music, but you have to pay for the costumes, the stage etc.

I would love to see things like that for L5R, but that's because I'm a big fan of the narrative aspect. On the other hand, I can understand that players who prefer the usual one-on-one aspect of the game would not care about the narrative campaign and would rather have a possibility to only get the cards that they can play in usual decks.

Back to LCG costs. Yesterday, just for personal curiosity, i checked how many i should invest as total new player to build AGOT World Championship winner's deck. Bandwagonning at it's best, but for someone starting from zero is probably best idea co copy and play "pro" decks becasue well built and tested deck should help to learn game mechanism more than first naive constructions. Let's say i just love Lannisters, want to play only this House and want to have something that achieved most important AGoT trophy this year.

https://thronesdb.com/decklist/view/6736/world-champion-1st-place-deck-1.0

3xCore Set, 7 packs and 1 Deluxe. Buyin package like this straight from local FLGS would cost me something about 220$. This is a price of stand alone T1 competetive deck. Yes, with this purchase i also received lot of other cards, but atm, right in this situation, they're just bunch of useless paper just like these mythical boxes of uncommons in CCG.

It's for that reason and that reason alone that I really wish that every card has a real meaning of use. No matter the system, CCG or LCG, no matter the game, MTG or L5R, banwagonning is something that, in my opinion, is bad for the game itself. Why? Because it brings a meta. Why does it have to have useless cards or lots of very situationnal cards? This is basically the CCG way of doing their business, because most of the best cards are mostly in the rare categories, but this is CCG business case.

What if most cards that we get are really good and usable? This would bring more strategy to the table of deck building. Otherwise, what's the point of having different cards? If FFG want to do things right, I think that most of their set should be theme around a few Clans and the packs should be themed per Clan. This would remove the feeling of having to buy useless cards. Sure, it may be tough to do, but because these, and I'll use your terms, useless paper just like these mythical boxes of uncommons in CCG, people simply want to copy and play "pro" decks causing people to pay a lot for very few. Sure, it help to learn game mechanism, but sometime, the deck mechanism is very strange.

In other words, it should have things like: "Dueling pack", "Archer pack", "Shugenja pack", "Courtier pack", "[Enter_Any_Theme_Here_Because_I_Dont_Want_To_Include_All_Theme_In_My_List] pack", etc. and this will help us to focus on the need for everyone of us who enjoys different gameplay. As I said, it's not something easy to do, in fact, it's very hard, specially for the very first release. But I am really tired of seeing box of useless papers... Otherwise, what's the poing of going into a LCG if there will have the same number of useless cards like a CCG?

Edit: Double post, sorry.

I don't think any store wants to carry "L5R: Now with 40 Different SKUs a month!"

Also, dirty secret, the "most cards good and usable, some cards bad but serving specific niche or thematic" is what design generally tries to do on LCGs, but as it turns out, 10-20 guys are way worse at solving a system than multiple thousand people hammering that same system. In any kind of interesting card game, strategies will float to the top, and other strategies will be devalued, contextually. I've seen plenty of initial game designs bent on "balancing it so everything is viable!" and the resulting games played like watching wet cement dry; generally having massive issues with tempo due to "balancing" the basic card design and strategy (not to mention how horribly bland and interchangeable card effects and themes have to be to even approach "perfect" balance).

Netrunner is basically one big math equation, and it still has cards that, while mathematically "balanced and good," get tossed out because they don't fit what's going on in the metagame. You aren't going to escape a metagame just by making cards good.

"Perfect balance" will never exist. There will be cards made that just don't work. This is something that has come up in X-wing a LOT. Even if a mathematical perfect balance could be achieved, I don't necessarily think that it is the best way to design a game around.

Netrunner is basically one big math equation, and it still has cards that, while mathematically "balanced and good," get tossed out because they don't fit what's going on in the metagame. You aren't going to escape a metagame just by making cards good.

Mark Rosewater, over at the Magic Mothership, has been doing an invaluable service to game fans for years with his regular column on designing and developing a game, and what that takes. Sure, the game in this case is Magic, but they're still great articles to read and learn from.

In any case, his article on When Cards Go Bad is the beginning of his musing on the subject about how and why collectable game companies make cards that are "bad". He's returned to the subject numerous times since then as well.

sgs

Really nice article. A difference is, that in MtG (CCG) you can build your personal deck card by card (singles market) but in LCG you have to buy everything including all these types of bad cards. ;) So being LCG advocate i wouldn't show articles like this to customers.

tl;dr version - Much of MaRo's discussion of why there have to be bad cards is really "why there have be bad cards, given that our business model involves getting you to buy lots of packs from every set we release."

In general, I find MaRo's writing to be extremely valuable within its scope. However, some of the things he talks about are really specific to CCG design and not game design generally. The discussion of why there "must" be bad cards is one of them. Not that it doesn't apply at all, but it doesn't fully apply.

For example, his reasons #1 is that not all cards can be good. There is truth to the notion that it's not possible to make everything equally good, but that's not really what he's talking about. What he specifically says is that a Magic environment only sees about 300-400 cards that every actually get played. But since Magic has 1500 cards legal in standard at some point, that necessarily means that 1100+ of those cards will be "bad" (not tournament playable at all). (note that Standard no longer has that many cards legal at a time, since cards are legal for only 18 months, instead of 24). And the notion of making fewer cards must be taken off the table for business reasons. But an LCG doesn't have that same issue. An LCG releases 20 new cards a month, not 200 every three months (although cards stay legal much longer for an LCG).

Reason #2 different cards for different players is an applicable reason. There's no reason that every single LCG card has to be aimed at inclusion in a top-level deck, so long as there is sufficient audience interest in whatever cute/cool purpose the card has.

The notion of needing bad cards so that players can figure out what bad cards are is (IMHO) a pretty garbage reason, but I suppose it applies.

There's also another reason that isn't mentioned in that particular article, which is that draft is a big moneymaker for Magic, and so a lot of lower-rarity cards are entirely developed for use in draft. Not applicable at all for standard LCG products.

At least for Thrones, some cards are Melee-centric and some are Joust-centric. Most people ignore the former when considering a card's relative value.

Re: extra items from the A:NR Legacy pack - Sell it on eBay. It's a little bit more trouble, but you'll find buyers.

Aren't we forgetting that in the CCG model you have also to buy stuff you don't need, with the additional inconvenient that you don't know what exactly you are buying? The existence of a secondary market has less to do with the release model being CCG or LCG and more with the existence of a thriving community and a competitive environment.

Aren't we forgetting that in the CCG model you have also to buy stuff you don't need, with the additional inconvenient that you don't know what exactly you are buying? The existence of a secondary market has less to do with the release model being CCG or LCG and more with the existence of a thriving community and a competitive environment.

Eh, the existence of pretty hard value caps on singles in an LCG definitely makes a huge difference. If I want 3 of a Netrunner card that's currently in-print, I can always get it for ~$15 or less from a datapack, or $30 or less from a Big Box. That gives individual singles a very low ceiling to maneuver under. Particularly the "screw it, I'll just buy a box" situation is completely different in CCGs vs LCGs. In CCGs, if you need 4 $20 Singles from a set, you can't just say "screw it, buying a box" and pay the 20% difference actually get them along with a grip of other cards. If the 3 cards I want from the Data Pack are $4 each, I can just pay $3 more to get the whole datapack off the shelf (or $13 to get it from CSI). Between shipping and handling and the low price ceiling on singles, it's very difficult to run a singles shop for the games (and god forbid you have competition in your singles sales). The promo market is a different beast, but promo distribution is detached from the CCG or LCG model entirely.

Amusing things do happen to LCG Datapacks when they stop being in print though. Mmm, Jackson Howard.

If that's the case, then the problem is not that the LCG is more expensive than a CCG, at least not for the players, which would defeat most of the negative claims being made here. The problem, if any, would be that there is no business in it for the secondary marketeers. Rather, the fact there wasn't business to be made would simply mean that there is not a significant need for it.

On the other hand, googling for Netrunner singles I see that there are several places selling them, which would mean that there is money to be made after all, if the game is succesful and there is a healthy tournament scene.

In any case, if the viability of this secondary market business depends on having no, or next to no, competition, I'd feel little sympathy. If the evils of the LCG release model are simply that it is so much more efficient to get cards in the customers' hands than the CCG model than there is no room for additional middlemen, it would be easier to make me feel sorry for oncologists being out of job because the cure for cancer has been magically found.

I know Team Covenant used to sell faction sets. But, that clearly didn't do enough business for them to continue it.

I'm still a firm believer that the LCG model is ONLY cheaper if you are a completionist. Otherwise, CCGs are by far more cheaper.

And a lot of those circumstances that you apply to a CCG to make it cheaper can apply to an LCG. You don't actually have to buy all the packs. Hell, they have those little codes that you can scan with your phone and see what is in there before you buy, so its not like you exactly have to keep up to date online with spoilers. I even think the idea of getting into a mature LCG is difficult is overblown, because there will be plenty of knowledge from the playerbase on what are good targeted buys.

I'm still a firm believer that the LCG model is ONLY cheaper if you are a completionist. Otherwise, CCGs are by far more cheaper.

Isn't that only true if you win boosters in tournaments?

My view of the LCG model is that by spending approximately 20$ a month (counting the deluxe) after the initial buy of the 3 core sets, I have all I need to play every deck imaginable in the meta.

I have no idea how much a competitive MTG decks costs at the moment, but I think the life expectancy of that deck is around a few months. Anyone has a better estimate than that?

I sometimes watch the videos from the MTG Pro Tour and from one PT to another, there seems to be quite a turn out in decks played. Some few decks are mainstays but I've always felt they're a minority.

I'm still a firm believer that the LCG model is ONLY cheaper if you are a completionist. Otherwise, CCGs are by far more cheaper.

Isn't that only true if you win boosters in tournaments?

I wouldn't say ONLY true at all. But it certainly helps, of course. But really, a lot of packs I won in tournaments went to other people... who didn't win a lot of packs. Also, I'm not talking about magic where you never just give packs away. The moment you do, you give away a $500 card! lol I'm strictly talking about the L5R CCG in this instance. Where I maybe lose out on a $20 card at most.

And for the most part, when a new arc rolled out, I picked a theme (decktype) I liked the most and played that theme all the way to the new arc. Now... I did play other stuff in casual play and I usually had 3-4 decks on me at any given time, but I usually stuck with one theme (most likely a tier 4 theme! haha) at tournaments and ran with it. I was a die hard Spider player and it was nice when other players would just give away spider clan stuff to me. And I'd do the same for them for their chosen clan. And that's what I saw most of the player base do in L5R. Magic is different in that there isn't color loyalty.

That point you raise has always been, for me, a big plus about the L5R community. Thanks to clan loyalty, trading for most of the cards you need was easier.

For example, in my playgroup, I was the Unicorn player, another was the Lion one, we also had a Phoenix, a Scorpion, a Crab, etc. And getting 3 of every personality from our clan was easy, considering we nearly all bought at least half a box of boosters each set.

The hard part was getting the cards everybody had to play. Productive Mine was a real pain to get everybody a 3-of (except Lion) when it first came out, and there was not really a good replacement at first. This is what I disliked about the L5R CCG. In the end, after the move from 48-boosters boxes to 36-boosters ones, and a rise in the numbers of nonunique neutral cards like awesome holdings and strategies like Victory through deference, it became harder and harder to get the cards everybody wanted.

I can understand why some don't like the LCG model and its fast pace of meta shifts, but I am personally glad I'll be able to play any deck I want, even if I'll probably play only my faction of choice in storyline tournaments.

Now if only August 2017 was already here...

Just some visual evidence that Netrunner is LCG king.

Just some visual evidence that Netrunner is LCG king.

Well... at least until next year!

Now I want to quote the giant graphic too.