What I will take from it is that the game is in beta, so is therefore very close to finish, which means hopefully some details emerging are imminent.
Gameplay Speculation
Well, I imagine they have to have it close to finished at this point. At least the mechanics. Maybe the exact layout of the cards are still in flux and all of the artwork is not in place... But with only 5 month left from its official unveiling and the amount of time necessary to do art design, print and package the thing... the kind of need to have decided every card that is going in the set (even if the precise name of the card can change) and what 98% of the mechanics are going to be even if you tick a few numbers up or down. You can't very well have the mechanics as a total rough draft all the way up until the day of release.
2 hours ago, TheHobgoblyn said:Okay, as the chief marketing officer his opinion cannot really be taken seriously one way or the other.
I am not sure what to make of him having been a brand manager for the game 16 years ago. Every edition of the game had its good aspects and its mistakes.
We're you expecting an employee, especially of a company as generally tight lipped as FFG, to trash the game or something. I don't get what you expected him to say.
As for his involvement I can't imagine it's anything but good. It shows he's got a long history with a love of the game. He understands the fan base and what the game means to us. He played in the storyline tournaments. He won a couple. Did you watch the interviews he gave that I posted? He seems like he knows the game and gets what made it special. I think it's great that there's someone like that in FFG.
I'm having trouble imagining what the point of being cynical about his involvement is.
1 hour ago, cielago said:We're you expecting an employee, especially of a company as generally tight lipped as FFG, to trash the game or something. I don't get what you expected him to say.
As for his involvement I can't imagine it's anything but good. It shows he's got a long history with a love of the game. He understands the fan base and what the game means to us. He played in the storyline tournaments. He won a couple. Did you watch the interviews he gave that I posted? He seems like he knows the game and gets what made it special. I think it's great that there's someone like that in FFG.
I'm having trouble imagining what the point of being cynical about his involvement is.
I was being dismissive of the idea that any positive review from a very person who is involved in working on the game and is in charge of advertising it has any validity as an actual critique of the game. I specifically wouldn't expect any negative criticism from such a person.
So taking such quote as a counter-balance to those who played the game at this stage and said that they found it a bad experience and disappointing seems silly.
Granted, any aspect of the game that is disappointing or leaves one with a negative play experience at this point in development can be fixed before release. The aspects others have seen of the game at this point say it is a lot like Game of Thrones (which is a good thing, I believe) and that there is an upkeep cost on personalities and they all die if you don't pay it, and the person walking the new player through the game apparently forgot to mention that causing a bad experience when the new player unexpectedly lost all their personalities for having neglected to play it... or, possibly, it is so onerous to pay the cost that letting everyone die is the preferable option.
And having to pay to feed your army isn't necessarily a bad mechanic either. If such a thing is part of the game, then it creates the option of attacking your opponent's food source if you aren't strong enough to fight their army head-on. Attacking holdings rather than attacking provinces (and, yet, holdings are left unaffected even when provinces are removed) seems like it would be a possible improvement over the old system.
It probably just wasn't clearly explained. The mechanic could be dropped before the final version... or it could be ironed out and/or better explained as a core part of the game.
16 minutes ago, TheHobgoblyn said:
And having to pay to feed your army isn't necessarily a bad mechanic either. If such a thing is part of the game, then it creates the option of attacking your opponent's food source if you aren't strong enough to fight their army head-on. Attacking holdings rather than attacking provinces (and, yet, holdings are left unaffected even when provinces are removed) seems like it would be a possible improvement over the old system.
It probably just wasn't clearly explained. The mechanic could be dropped before the final version... or it could be ironed out and/or better explained as a core part of the game.
You realise you keep having arguments with thin air right? Nobody mentioned anything about the upkeep thing yet you still go off and rebuttle an argument nobody is having.
In the nicest possible way, I really don't get what your deal is. Super argumentative.
1 hour ago, cielago said:I'm having trouble imagining what the point of being cynical about his involvement is.
Some people like to set their stall out early and hop on the hate train. Same kind of people in 6 months time will be here saying the new L5R is a terrible game no matter what it looks like. I think many people have already decided they won't like it.
I'm actually delighted that Steve Hovarth is on board with the game. Having someone who clearly loves the product so close of its renaissance is only a good thing.
Edited by Moto SubodeiIIRC you could raid your opponent's water supply in Legend of the Burning Sands.
10 hours ago, Barbacuo said:IIRC you could raid your opponent's water supply in Legend of the Burning Sands.
You could indeed, and it was called food in the semi-comedic re-implementation R9K.
Re-imagining LBS into Romance of the 9 Empires was even worst than killing the game.
Edited by Barbacuo
Wasn't R9K imagined as a stand-in for a documentary or short film?
IIRC, AEG only made it a "real" game as a token of appreciation for the filmmakers and fans of the movie? Or was it a KS thing?
It was a movie called Gamers: Hands of fate, or something like that. It's from a group un people who like games, they already did a couple a films, and this one was funded via KS. It's about a guy who starts playing a card game similar to L5R in the way that tournament wins decides the lore. Then a bad guy who plays op cheesy decks wants to destroy the lore or something like that, and the fluff lovers support this new guy so he can eventually win the bad guy. Since the game had this point similar to L5R, one of the stretch goals were that, if funded to a certain point, AEG would print the actual game. There was no actual game, nor gameplay, so they just picked LBS, which was similar to L5R, an pasted it in a setting with knights and WWII soldiers fighting in space. They even released an expansion pack.
I hope they will keep the 2 decks and change the gold producing mode, cause this aways have been a problem, maybe if they cut holding abilities the game will be easier to attract new players too, more focus on personalities and actions, and less "modifiers" like sensei, winds, etc...
3 minutes ago, kempy said:
SHUT THE EEFFFFFF UPPPPPPPP
i wonder if they'll actually show anything, or just be like "hey guys, heres a post of l5r! get hyped!"
good spot kempy!
Edited by cielagodepending on how that livestream goes, we might need a new thread, graduating from "speculation" to "discussion". wouldn't that be a nice change.
They have 45 minutes to go over 6 games. That is 7 and a half minute per a game.
1 minute ago, TheHobgoblyn said:They have 45 minutes to go over 6 games. That is 7 and a half minute per a game.
I think it's just enough to describe any LCG game from FFG, lol.
27 minutes ago, kempy said:I think it's just enough to describe any LCG game from FFG, lol.
you can't explain netrunner's opening hands in 7 minutes. and good luck doing lotr's turn structure in less than 20
Edited by cielagoI legitimately wonder why kempy is here. He seems excited for the game, yet takes every chance he can get to denounce ffg.
19 minutes ago, BayushiCroy said:I legitimately wonder why kempy is here. He seems excited for the game, yet takes every chance he can get to denounce ffg.
Well, that's why he's here, to denounce FFG at every opportunity.
40 minutes ago, BayushiCroy said:I legitimately wonder why kempy is here. He seems excited for the game, yet takes every chance he can get to denounce ffg.
I don't like rhetorical questions.
1) Steve Horvath is the guy at FFG who is answering ALL THE L5R questions. Expect to see him function as the Brand Manager under FFG. If you look at any of the interviews involving the sale? He's the guy doing the talking.
2) 7 and a half minutes will be enough to confirm key gameplay details, such as Strongholds, Victory Conditions, Two Decks / One Deck, Factions, Personalities, Strategies, Provinces, Honor, etc
3) I have honestly come around to enjoying Kempy's point of view on these matters. As much as I may disagree with him on several points, he has the passion of someone who truly loves L5R. And that is something I respect.
I agree with point 3, most of the time. The thing is, I very much appreciate cautious, optimism most of the time.
My issue is more the comments like "7 minutes is enough to explain any of the other lcgs"
(on phone, forgive formatting and not quoting.)
Comments like this don't serve any purpose except to jab at ffg. He claims a lot of people are clamoring to l5r with ffg because they are lcg fans boys and biased. I claim he is exactly the opposite and so salty on ffg and lcg format that he stands to lose out on a potentially good game simply because he dislikes the format so much.
Which sucks because when he isn't being facetious, he has really good things to say. Let's be honest, most of the announcements and low key info has been brought forward by him, he which I am very appreciative of.
And now so this post isn't just shitting on Kempy.
So I read through the Steve Horvath tweets and he mentioned that he played dragon vs crane. This is important toe because this seems to be confirmation that we play a specific clan. I know everyone assumed that would be true, especially after the Paris image, but some people also thought of... Like... Much, much more mixed deck with many neutrals to try to support all the factions in the core set.
To be fair, that could be still be true, but I am digging for anything and it seems that we do choose to play a specific clan, even if we don't know the deck building yet.
On Sunday, March 05, 2017 at 11:03 PM, BayushiCroy said:Uhhhhh. Yeah that's the whole reason military was a stupid mechanic. You build a deck and the military deck builds a military deck. Non military deck gets smashed by attacks. It was never fun at all. That's why military was stupid.
Uhhhhh. Yeah that's the whole reason honor was a stupid mechanic. You build a deck and the honor deck builds a honor deck. Non honor deck gets smashed by honor gain. It was never fun at all. That's why honor was stupid
Uhhhhh. Yeah that's the whole reason cavalry was a stupid mechanic. You build a deck and the cav deck builds a cav deck. Non cavalry deck gets smashed by horses . It was never fun at all. That's why cavaley was stupid
Uhhhhh. Yeah that's the whole reason naval was a stupid mechanic. You build a deck and the naval deck builds a naval deck. Non naval deck gets smashed by first actions . It was never fun at all. That's why naval was stupid
Uhhhhh. Yeah that's the whole reason enlightment was a stupid mechanic. You build a deck and the enlightment deck builds a enlightment deck. Non enlightment deck gets smashed by someone playing guided solitaire . It was never fun at all. That's why enlightment was stupid
Pick your flavor.
I disagree a little, i like duels but if we think about the Many arcs dueling aways be a little unfair, until their effects were "nerfed" in ivory. The fact is you can easily destroy a 14GC unity with your 6 GC duelist using a 0GC action... and thats unfair. At the same time doesnt makes much sense a duel loser dont die like in ivory.. but, what sense makes you destroy the pers. Followers winning the duel... so the dueling system really need to be reviewed.
2 hours ago, BayushiCroy said:So I read through the Steve Horvath tweets and he mentioned that he played dragon vs crane. This is important toe because this seems to be confirmation that we play a specific clan. I know everyone assumed that would be true, especially after the Paris image, but some people also thought of... Like... Much, much more mixed deck with many neutrals to try to support all the factions in the core set.
To be fair, that could be still be true, but I am digging for anything and it seems that we do choose to play a specific clan, even if we don't know the deck building yet.
Crane vs Dragon could even be the demo we may be seeing on Wednesday; what two better clans to show off duelling mechanics?
With the core set and other early decks, you're probably going to see a lot of neutral card use because they're working with their smallest card pool. Because of how many clans there are in the game, I would be shocked if there was no faction mixing for the same reason. Looking at their other LCGs, you will likely declare a clan through a banner/champion/stronghold, but there will be some rule baked into the game to let you play with cards from other factions, which will be needed until the clans have developed enough of their own cards.
I feel so excited to see the GAMA preview tomorrow. I wish I had a time machine. I would gladly jump over a Tuesday to get to the L5R premiere showing.
Edited by terryfullerRedundancy