37 minutes ago, BayushiCroy said:

I believe I remember top 4 of Ann Arbors IVE kotei of around 50 people being 3 crane.

Crane were real good start of IVE

I could find some 3-of too but i can't remember same clan Top4, especially in biggest tourneys.

Edit - i found one 20F Arc Kotei dominated by Mantis -> http://www.chikan.pl/index.php?topic=8557.msg115800#msg115800

On 29/3/2017 at 2:36 PM, Muktidata said:

That was probably the case with AGOT since it was at the beginning of second edition when the Lannister cards were released. You basically had the base set and then a massive Lannister set. Suzumi brought up a good point that imbalance will exist no matter what, but I do hope they spread the cards out more evenly. Has anyone from FF ever addressed their release and their thoughts about factions having larger card pools? If their stance is anywhere on the web, I'd love to read it.

I'm just confused. I don't know if others pointed it out already, but the first Deluxe Expansion for AGOT 2.0 was not Lannisters, it was Starks. Lannisters got their Deluxe after a year and a half into the game (well past their dominant era) and while created new options for them, it was not the reason why they were so dominant on the first place (they had the best 2 characters of the Core and one of the best in faction event plus a lot of efficient characters). So this whole thread makes no sense to me.

Others also pointed out that right now, the meta favors a specific house right now (Tyrell in Batalla por el Muro) which haven't had a Deluxe yet, so it's not tied to them having a bigger card pool. It's more tied to them having had new shinny toys on the last chapter that made them suddently viable and more interesting. If you look at how torunaments went, you will see that Lannisters dominated the first or so year of the game, while Tyrells and the Night Watch were the least favoured houses. Those 2 are now the top tier ones thanks to the cards they received during the second cycle, not from the DE. This is something you will need to learn to deal with. The meta will change with each released pack and sometimes your clan will not get favoured by the new cards. Other times, a new chapter will make your clan shine and become the new meta. This is the devs intention as everyone has access to the same pool card (so your Pokemon or Magik analogy doesn't work) and they need to create power swings to keep things interesting (and people buying the new cards). L5R is no longer a TCG and applying the TCG logic to it will make you really disappointed. TCG sets are bigger so it's easier to include new toys for every faction/clan/color while allowing a swift of the meta. LCG sets size doesn't allow for that, so don't expect that your clan will allways get the best cards of the pack and will stay on top.

To sum it up, I don't see the faction based DE as unbalancing products. They don't empower a house beyond the rest. They give them more options to build decks, but not all the card are synergetic with the existing pulls. They diversify their builds, which make the game more interesting for everyone, not only those who support that house.

I rather they do it this way for L5R too as the other option (cards for everyone) will make new decks and archtypes almost impossible to introduce. Or how would you introduce a new deck archtype (like the Lannister clansmen) that requires around 10 new cards to be viable if not in a faction based DE? Releasing them 2 at a time in chapters will take almost a year for them to see the light. Those playing the house/clan getting the new archtype would get completelly screwed by this, as during that time they will not get new cards that support their existing decks. Doing them in multiple DE suffers from the same problem. The house getting cards of the new archtype would get stale while not having a viable way to make good use of the new cards. That's not something I would want for any card game.

On 2/4/2017 at 0:57 PM, kempy said:

I could find some 3-of too but i can't remember same clan Top4, especially in biggest tourneys.

I feel you will be really disappointed on FFG' L5R (and any other LCG) just because you expect it to behave like a TCG. I know they sold the LCG model as a TCG without randomisation, but that's not all that is behind it. Like I said above, LCG sets are smaller to make them viable, so clans will not get good cards each pack. Excpecting otherwise is foolish.

LCG players also have access to the whole card pool from the beginning. They don't have to choose and committ to a clan for monetary reasons like in a TCG. They can switch factions at will and most players will do that if they feel they will have a better chance at winning a tournament with another clan (something a TCG player can't do without reinvesting hundreds of dollars). That creates a "less diverse" meta as the top tier decks are available to everyone and not those that have the cash (or luck) to own them.

The devs know about this limitations of the model and it's one of the reason they release small chapters each month with some powerful cards that will shake the meta up and bring new clans to the top while dethroning the previous top tier ones.

If you judge the health of AGOT by the top decks of a big tournament you will find that factions are more prevalent than others, and that's intentional as a single tournament is a picture of what the meta is at that time. The good players are those that quickly grasp the potential of the new cards the devs put on the new chapter and get an understanding on how the meta will swift.

If you want to know the health of an LCG you need to take a look at the reports of several months. For example: the first picture is the faction distribution of decks that made the cut on a tournament. Lannisters were dominant during the first year, while Targaryen, Baratheon and Greyjoys made the top 4 factions. Starks, the ones with a DE were the top 5 faction, and Tyrells and the Night Watch were the bottom 2 (the 2 best factions at Batalla por el Muro 2017).

The second image is the state of the game during this past 3 months (decks that made the cut per faction in a tournament). The balance of the house increased as the Lannisters dominance decreased. The bottom 2 houses got a boost and are now viable. Martells became the bottom house alongside Starks, but that might change in the near future.

1 hour ago, xchan said:

LCG players also have access to the whole card pool from the beginning. They don't have to choose and committ to a clan for monetary reasons like in a TCG. They can switch factions at will and most players will do that if they feel they will have a better chance at winning a tournament with another clan (something a TCG player can't do without reinvesting hundreds of dollars). That creates a "less diverse" meta as the top tier decks are available to everyone and not those that have the cash (or luck) to own them.

As L5R was main tournament game for years i've noticed one important thing. In major tourneys (i mean Koteis, bigger Story/Winners Choice etc) participating people got they decks 100% finished, i mean with all rares/promos etc. L5R wasn't MtG in term of card prices, and trust me, to complete full T1 deck before Kotei wasn't problem here - there always were enough people to lend you cards or even build them especially for you. Escpecially by your clan people. Rare chasing wasn't problem in this level of competition. Local/store level was complete different environment where, as like in every CCG, better/pricey cards could gave you advantage.

So more diversity in tops wasn't a problem of lack of cards but it was more about clan loyalty. Of course there was lot of bandwagoners who played best stuff depend of state of current meta, but number of total loyalists was visible. And if - for example - main prize was clan oriented, most people tried to stick to their favourites instead giving potential choice to other clans.

I agree. I think your going to be disappointed.

I plan on playing Dragon, period. Wether they are good or bad... for better or worse. Thee only other faction I am excited for is shadowlands... if only.

I would encourage you as a loyal clan player to stick it out. It took over 100 years for the Cubs to win the series... be a true fan. That way when the sun happens to shine, so shall you.

We all know Dragon will rule Rokugan, eventually. ?

6 hours ago, xchan said:

I feel you will be really disappointed on FFG' L5R (and any other LCG) just because you expect it to behave like a TCG. I know they sold the LCG model as a TCG without randomisation, but that's not all that is behind it. Like I said above, LCG sets are smaller to make them viable, so clans will not get good cards each pack. Excpecting otherwise is foolish.

Kempy's opinion of LCGs is already so low that FFG would have to work very hard indeed to disappoint him.

6 hours ago, xchan said:

I feel you will be really disappointed on FFG' L5R (and any other LCG) just because you expect it to behave like a TCG. I know they sold the LCG model as a TCG without randomisation, but that's not all that is behind it. Like I said above, LCG sets are smaller to make them viable, so clans will not get good cards each pack. Excpecting otherwise is foolish.

LCG players also have access to the whole card pool from the beginning. They don't have to choose and committ to a clan for monetary reasons like in a TCG. They can switch factions at will and most players will do that if they feel they will have a better chance at winning a tournament with another clan (something a TCG player can't do without reinvesting hundreds of dollars). That creates a "less diverse" meta as the top tier decks are available to everyone and not those that have the cash (or luck) to own them.

The devs know about this limitations of the model and it's one of the reason they release small chapters each month with some powerful cards that will shake the meta up and bring new clans to the top while dethroning the previous top tier ones.

Well thanks for summing up everything that's wrong with the LCG model.

Also, I don't expect anything else besides what you described. I already know that, given their track record, this is how it will be done. Doesn't mean I like it. I absolutely DESPISE the LCG distribution model. This is why I don't play LCGs. Why would it be so difficult to release bigger sets every 4 months? Let the meta settle before introducing more cards. Play a deck at a few tourneys before new cards come out. It isn't hard at all and I'm not quite sure I understand the reasoning behind a few card packs every month. The price for packs would be exactly the same. Instead of 20 cards every month, get 80 every 4 months.

This doesn't mean I won't like L5R, though. You know... getting that in there before someone says something stupid like 'well if you don't like the distribution model, you won't like this game because it's gonna be like this... blah blah blah'. I'm hoping the game will be great! And I hope it will be great enough to overcome my dislike of the model so I will play!

6 hours ago, Kakita Shiro said:

Kempy's opinion of LCGs is already so low that FFG would have to work very hard indeed to disappoint him.

I think you underestimate Kempy's disappointment.

When there is only the void, Kempy will be disappointed that there's nothing to be disappointed about anymore.

6 hours ago, Sparks Duh said:

Well thanks for summing up everything that's wrong with the LCG model.

Also, I don't expect anything else besides what you described. I already know that, given their track record, this is how it will be done. Doesn't mean I like it. I absolutely DESPISE the LCG distribution model. This is why I don't play LCGs. Why would it be so difficult to release bigger sets every 4 months? Let the meta settle before introducing more cards. Play a deck at a few tourneys before new cards come out. It isn't hard at all and I'm not quite sure I understand the reasoning behind a few card packs every month. The price for packs would be exactly the same. Instead of 20 cards every month, get 80 every 4 months.

I'm not so sure the periodical releases are a bad thing. Others tried the bigger sets every 4 months schedule (Ashes, Doomtown, VS 2PCG, etc.) and they weren't really successful despise the games being good. A 4 months period between releases works for TCGs because people spend most of it trying to get the cards (or saving money to get them). The time LCG don't have that. They get all the cards at once. With a 4 month schedule, the meta becomes stale pretty fast as there are better clans/factions and card interactions and nothing to shake the status quo. Also a small delay on the next set is really hurting the communities. Ashes and VS2PCG haven't seen new cards since Gen Con last year. That's an 8 months wait due to unexpected production delays, which has caused people to jump ship. FFG release schedule allows for better control of production times, as while there might be delays between cycles, they have a bigger gap to work with (6 months). They can just delay a certain chapter one more week so developers have more time to finish the next cycle.

Releasing a few cards each months keeps the community invested and the game healthy.

Also, if you are a loyalist, you end up playing the same deck in several tournaments. That's not a problem. You just won't perform the same across all of them which makes things interesting.

thanks for that detailed look at agot. Conquest had a similar feel in terms of deck changes and I think it would work quite well with l5r.

2 hours ago, xchan said:

A 4 months period between releases works for TCGs because people spend most of it trying to get the cards (or saving money to get them).

Or just playing and exploring new environment and try to test against everything in the play. Just don't forget that in L5R typically you get one expansion per 3 month that had 156+ new cards. It's just twice more stuff to play than typical LCG got same time. And people played new stuff (proxies/online) as they got preview or full spoiler. Every expansion had 1 month preview cycle with foretold order.

2 hours ago, xchan said:

Releasing a few cards each months keeps the community invested and the game healthy.

I got completely different experiences (i'm in touch with LCGs since A:NR release). "Meta Shaking" expansions are rarity in LCG. Most of time every expansion just tweaks a bit something. It's typical that many times 90% of some decks stays "staple" for months if not years. There's illusion of "fresh changes" becasue of tempo of releases and online buzz. In reality many packs stay even untouched in term of tournament gameplay.

That's why people play everything becasue they got bored of their decks so fast. And they can. That's just LCG philosophy. Someone like it, other don't.

Conquest had just this "forced" system, because warlord/signature package required you to replace 20% of your deck at the start. Even if most of other cards in decklist were just staple, universal things.

5 minutes ago, kempy said:

Or just playing and exploring new environment and try to test against everything in the play. Just don't forget that in L5R typically you get one expansion per 3 month that had 156+ new cards. It's just twice more stuff to play than typical LCG got same time. And people played new stuff (proxies) as they got preview or full spoiler. Every expansion had 1 month preview cycle with foretold order.

Yes, TCG can release more cards per set, as they have the potential to make more revenue and hence they can have more resources invested on them. But this is not a TCG so big sets every 3 months are not viable.

You need to compare this LCG model to similar ones like Ashes or VS2PCG and decide which one you like better. I personally prefer the constant releases that AGOT offers as the waiting time for VS or Ashes killed the games on my area. Sure, there will be chapters that won't shake the meta but those has been the lesser ones, and the waiting time for new product has been relativelly small. There's something to look forward almost constantly instead of the lack of information that Ashes and VS2PCG has had during the past months.

This might change in the future, where more cards are released so new chapters won't have such a big impact on the meta, but then, the extra options the new cards and DE boxes introduced should give us enough options to create different decks to have fun with. Either way, they can always alter their rotation policy to spice things up if the community pressures them to do so. Either way, we as fans can come with alternate formats to keep things interested. Bring your own two cycles (only cards from the Core and 2 cycles are allowed), Coreless tournaments (only cards from cycles and DE are allowed), Make X clan Great Again (only decks from X clan are allowed), Thematic tournaments (only nedly decks are allowed), New agendas tournaments (like they did for AGOT), etc.

The LCG system has its flaws, I'm not going to deny it, but at least allows for less popular games to have a chance in a really predatory market. There's a reason why Netrunner, CoC or AGOT failed as a TCG but made it as an LCG. L5R failed as a TCG so FFG is giving it second chance with the LCG format.

We could discuss ways to improve the system but to do so, we need to be aware of the limitations of it. FFG has been listening and improving on the model since it's inception (better core sets, faster releases, implementation of rotation, etc.), so nothing is set on stone. Asking for bigger sets each 2-3 months instead of the monthly 20 card chapters is something other companies have tried to do and so far haven't pulled off successfully (unless some awesome game has bypassed my radar), so maybe the answer is not in that direction.

Maybe FFG is aware of that and it's one of the reasons why they are exploring other options that revolve around the deckbuilding instead. SW introduced the pot system, Conquest the generals, Arkham the 30 decks with 2x max, and if the info we got so far is true, L5R could follow this last option to give us 1.5 more cards each pack, which coul mean more cards each month without having to change a successful distribution model.

What's your biggest complain of the system? What would you suggest to improve it?

5 minutes ago, kempy said:

I got completely different experiences (i'm in touch with LCGs since A:NR release). "Meta Shaking" expansions are rarity in LCG. Most of time every expansion just tweaks a bit something. It's typical that many times 90% of some decks stays "staple" for months if not years. There's illusion of "fresh changes" becasue of tempo of releases and online buzz. In reality many packs stay even untouched in term of tournament gameplay.

That's why people play everything becasue they got bored of their decks so fast. And they can. That's just LCG philosophy. Someone like it, other don't.

That hasn't been my experience for AGOT so far. I've been playing Greyjoy from the start, and every 1-2 months my deck has been different. From Fealty to banner to the Crossing agenda or the new Rains one. The options are there, you just need to be willing to explore them.

But like you say, if I get bored with them, I can just explore other factions as the cards are all available to me. The concept of loyalty is not as strong when you don't have to reinvest to get cards from other color/clans.

Well, the concept of Clan Loyalty in L5R is not only due to the fact that it was a CCG and you had to chase the cards you needed for your deck.

Clan Loyalty has its roots in the story and its appeal. The storyline prizes were what a lot (most?) of players were after. Of course, there were bandwagonners who would play the favored Clan of the moment to win boosters and nice shinies to sell them away, but most players competed for their Clan.

Because once you win for your clan, you become part of its history. I really wish I had my name on a few of the cards I play in my decks.

Sure, but that concept also exist on AGOT in some extent. People tend to play the houses they are a fan of from the show/books unless they want to go competitively in a big tournament (and even then, some still play their favourite houses). The prize to win those big tournaments is to design a card which doesn't have to be tied to the clan/house you pilot. Those players have cards with their names on their decks because they earn it by their great performance not because their house/clan was the one with strongest cards/combos during that time.

FFG already showed interest on keeping the players involvement in the story for L5R. We don't know how they will do that, but at least they are willing to try. If they will take the loyal approach or a less restricting one, we don't know yet. Either way, it has nothing to do with the OP concerns about DE breaking the clans balance.

6 hours ago, xchan said:

I'm not so sure the periodical releases are a bad thing. Others tried the bigger sets every 4 months schedule (Ashes, Doomtown, VS 2PCG, etc.) and they weren't really successful despise the games being good. A 4 months period between releases works for TCGs because people spend most of it trying to get the cards (or saving money to get them). The time LCG don't have that. They get all the cards at once. With a 4 month schedule, the meta becomes stale pretty fast as there are better clans/factions and card interactions and nothing to shake the status quo. Also a small delay on the next set is really hurting the communities. Ashes and VS2PCG haven't seen new cards since Gen Con last year. That's an 8 months wait due to unexpected production delays, which has caused people to jump ship. FFG release schedule allows for better control of production times, as while there might be delays between cycles, they have a bigger gap to work with (6 months). They can just delay a certain chapter one more week so developers have more time to finish the next cycle.

Releasing a few cards each months keeps the community invested and the game healthy.

Also, if you are a loyalist, you end up playing the same deck in several tournaments. That's not a problem. You just won't perform the same across all of them which makes things interesting.

Ok... First of all, none of those other games were made by FFG afaik. You talk about a game not releasing cards for 8 months?? Of course people will leave it. I'm not talking 8 months. I'm talking 3-4 months. It's long enough to have a set for a season, play and tweak decks for competitive play and actually play the same deck vs the same meta at more than one major tournament. 20 cards per release isn't enough to change the meta in a drastic way. 80 card expansions will have enough. Releasing expansions every 3-4 months also lets you release spoilers at a slower pace getting players more and more excited to play with the new cards. The environment doesn't get stale after only 3-4 months. Sorry. It's already been proven.

Releasing bigger card packs every 3-4 months keeps the community invested and the game healthy.

Also, if you are a loyalist, you end up playing the same deck in several tournaments. You can't if packs are coming out every month. I doubt there will be more than 1 major tournament for people to go to every month.

If you have more cards in the expansion, it shakes up the meta more. If they release every 3-4 months, you get to play your deck at more than 1 major tournament. It's just better overall.

The one thing to keep in mind in all of this, and it is not an argument either way, but card development is done probably well in advance to when it gets released. It wouldn't surprise me if the entire arc is defined before the first pack goes to the printing house.

As for game changers from data packs, the impact of some data packs were minimal to a lot of people in Netrunner. I know that both for my friend and myself, our decks didn't change every pack. In fact I'm pretty sure my friend's deck stayed the same for almost an entire arc, and mine only really changed out economy cards to try to make it more efficient.

There may also be a business case for the LCG smaller pack model that we aren't really paying attention to. Lets assume 3 packs in an 'arc' (this is not the case, but is to point at Sparks argument). Each pack contains 20 new cards. Each pack costs $15. I could see the business argument that customers are more likely to buy the 3 $15 data packs once a month than 1 $45 data pack every 3 months. For a lot of people, it doesn't matter, especially the hardcore players (who I assume we all are, because we are discussing this stuff with almost zero information), but perhaps the casual players and/or kids playing the game can't emotionally afford to dump $45 all at once, but can make the argument for $15. Logically, it doesn't make a difference, but perhaps emotionally it does. Also, say an arc sucks for a faction. There is one card that comes out that improves your deck (maybe a generic economy one). If you have to spend $45 to get that single card, you might not do it, where you might spend the $15 to get it. I know even some players I would describe as "hardcore" who balked a bit on buying packs because it didn't have anything worthwhile in them. They just skipped it, or borrowed the one copy they needed from someone who wasn't using it. Our Netrunner group was basically all of the L5R people who got tired of Ivory, so we were perfectly happy to lend out cards/etc.

2 minutes ago, Sparks Duh said:

The environment doesn't get stale after only 3-4 months. Sorry. It's already been proven.

Releasing bigger card packs every 3-4 months keeps the community invested and the game healthy.

Proven by who? Who has done it so we can compare it to? What is the number of non randomized cards a pack needs to have to achieve that? What is the waiting time between releases a community is willing to suffer before moving to the next new thing?

FFG won't try it out as they already have a successful release system (and trust me, I fought hard for that with Arkham Horror, which makes no sense to me as a regular LCG), so unless another company releases a more successful business model that would force them to change things up, this is what we have.

Releasing bigger expansions (3 packs together for 60 different cards) every 3 months is something they could do from the developing side of things as the chapters are developed all at once and then distributed in small packs after. However, it would force them to change their distribution model completelly, from the size of their printings to the size of the boxes and the increasing shipping/storing costs. There's no reason for them to do that without proven increase on revenue.

11 minutes ago, Sparks Duh said:

20 cards per release isn't enough to change the meta in a drastic way. 80 card expansions will have enough. Also, if you are a loyalist, you end up playing the same deck in several tournaments. You can't if packs are coming out every month. I doubt there will be more than 1 major tournament for people to go to every month.

If you have more cards in the expansion, it shakes up the meta more. If they release every 3-4 months, you get to play your deck at more than 1 major tournament. It's just better overall.

I'm really confused about this statement. If 20 cards aren't enough to change the meta in a drastic way, why are you changing your decks between the monthly tournaments then?

And why is changing your deck a bad thing in the first place?

3 minutes ago, Mirith said:

The one thing to keep in mind in all of this, and it is not an argument either way, but card development is done probably well in advance to when it gets released. It wouldn't surprise me if the entire arc is defined before the first pack goes to the printing house.

This has been public information for a while. Cards on a cycle are developed and playtested all at once a year prior to it's release (they are usually working 2 cycles ahead of the current one). So they could change the release schedule without altering the developing process at all. However, like you say, there's a lot of marketing (and production) factors we don't know about.

It's the same old discusion about having to buy multiple copies of the core sets to get a full playset of the cards. People have asked FFG to release "full" games at a higher price but they won't do it as it will cost them money, as casuals are a big part of their players base. That's not to say FFG won't try to improve their products to a certain point (for example, the cuantity of wasted cards in a core set has improved since the Netrunner and LotR days). They are also exploring new deckbuilding options that would allow them to bring more cards to the players without changing the release schedule and system (max of 2 cards per deck, pot system, generals system, etc.).

For as hardcore players, it doesn't matter if we get 1 big expansion at 45 or 3 at 15. We usually buy them all. But casual players are not so prone to do so. They might get a new chapter from time to time, usually if there is a card of a character they like from the books/backround and leave it at that.

Like I said before, it's up to the players to find ways to work around that. There's nothing stopping us from developing some kind of torunament system that will fit our demands better. There was no rotation sytem in place when Netrunner started and FFG had to implement one after players asked for it. People say that 8 cycles is too long, so why not come up with new formats to show them other possibilities?

We did that with the original VS System and created the Bring your own 2 teams or the Bring your own 2 sets format. Even the Moden Age (only the last 4 sets are legal) was first a fan made format. There's nothing stopping us from doing something similar for the LCG but us (and arguably the number of cards).

12 minutes ago, xchan said:

Proven by who? Who has done it so we can compare it to? What is the number of non randomized cards a pack needs to have to achieve that? What is the waiting time between releases a community is willing to suffer before moving to the next new thing?

FFG won't try it out as they already have a successful release system (and trust me, I fought hard for that with Arkham Horror, which makes no sense to me as a regular LCG), so unless another company releases a more successful business model that would force them to change things up, this is what we have.

Releasing bigger expansions (3 packs together for 60 different cards) every 3 months is something they could do from the developing side of things as the chapters are developed all at once and then distributed in small packs after. However, it would force them to change their distribution model completelly, from the size of their printings to the size of the boxes and the increasing shipping/storing costs. There's no reason for them to do that without proven increase on revenue.

I'm really confused about this statement. If 20 cards aren't enough to change the meta in a drastic way, why are you changing your decks between the monthly tournaments then?

And why is changing your deck a bad thing in the first place?

Bigger expansions and 3-4 month releases have been around for 25+ years, dude.

You shouldn't be confused. With new cards, come new decks. It may not be a significant change, but it does change. And even if no card from a 20 card expansion goes in to the deck you are running, you may still have to change your deck to account for cards going in to other decks. I don't feel like I should have to explain to you how meta works. Just because no cards are released for your deck doesn't mean your deck won't change.

I've already stated why it's a bad thing. Do you read my posts or what? I said that I'd like to play a particular deck at more than one major tourney before redesign.

Quote

Each pack contains 20 new cards. Each pack costs $15. I could see the business argument that customers are more likely to buy the 3 $15 data packs once a month than 1 $45 data pack every 3 months. For a lot of people, it doesn't matter, especially the hardcore players (who I assume we all are, because we are discussing this stuff with almost zero information), but perhaps the casual players and/or kids playing the game can't emotionally afford to dump $45 all at once, but can make the argument for $15.

It wouldn't matter to ANYONE, really. If you want to spend $15/ month for an expansion, that's what you will be paying either way. Trying to say it's different doesn't make it different. If you're willing to spend $15/ month on an expansion, but the expansion comes out every 3 months, then put $15/ month away and get the expansion with the same amount as you would pay anyway. Math is not hard.

9 minutes ago, Sparks Duh said:

Bigger expansions and 3-4 month releases have been around for 25+ years, dude.

Not in a non randomized format that I'm aware of. And if so, can you just list them as an example to analize their schedules and production sizes? Thanks.

9 minutes ago, Sparks Duh said:

I've already stated why it's a bad thing. Do you read my posts or what? I said that I'd like to play a particular deck at more than one major tourney before redesign.

Well, it's your opinion then. It's bad for you because you don't like to tweak your decks between tournaments. I can respect that. Just don't try to pass it as a fact.

9 minutes ago, Sparks Duh said:

It wouldn't matter to ANYONE, really. If you want to spend $15/ month for an expansion, that's what you will be paying either way. Trying to say it's different doesn't make it different. If you're willing to spend $15/ month on an expansion, but the expansion comes out every 3 months, then put $15/ month away and get the expansion with the same amount as you would pay anyway. Math is not hard.

So what if you only want to spend $15? What options do you have then?

Again, casual players are a big part of FFG revenue. They don't buy everything, they just buy whatever they feel like when they have the disposable income. Tripling the price of the products will only make them spend less, not more. It's like asking for Magik to remove their boosters as hardcore players only buy them in boxes (or singles) anyway.

3 minutes ago, xchan said:

So what if you only want to spend $15? What options do you have then?

Well I guess you're out of luck then. Because if you want to play a card game, you're gonna spend more than $15 to do so... Even with monthly packs.

30 minutes ago, Sparks Duh said:

Well I guess you're out of luck then. Because if you want to play a card game, you're gonna spend more than $15 to do so... Even with monthly packs.

My overall point is that while you don't like the LCG system, and it might not be ideal, there is a serious business case argument to make away from your preferred method. It personally does not affect me if the cards come out once every few months or once a month, but that is because I have an amount of disposable income to spend on such things. I imagine you are relatively in the same boat. However, FFG wants the game to work for lots of people, and you run into the problem that a lot of popular games have where the hardcore players and the overall population want very different things. And how do you define your products behavior, do you cater to the hardcore players who are more vocal and probably have a clearer idea as to what is going on, or to the far quieter majority of casual players who vote with their dollars?

I would agree that it would be great if FFG did some form of release season and tourney season, where nothing changed for some months while they did the official tournaments (Say 4 months out of the year, which to me actually sounds unreasonably short to go from Kotei level up to a worlds level), but then the casual players who aren't worried about tournaments don't get new stuff for 4 months. Then the environment isn't changing for the tournament scene. However, that also leaves FFG with 4 months where people aren't really buying product.

Don't forget that AEG did the same thing you are complaining about, but on a larger scale. They didn't seem to pay attention to when their new expansions came out during the middle of the Kotei season, which would vastly shift the entire playfield from during the tournament season. If I remember right, while I was playing, one happened the first month in, causing maybe 10-20% of Koteis to not have access to the new material, and then another season, it happened right before Gen Con. I actually found that mildly annoying, but those were the "bigger" packs we are referring to.

33 minutes ago, Mirith said:

Don't forget that AEG did the same thing you are complaining about, but on a larger scale. They didn't seem to pay attention to when their new expansions came out during the middle of the Kotei season, which would vastly shift the entire playfield from during the tournament season. If I remember right, while I was playing, one happened the first month in, causing maybe 10-20% of Koteis to not have access to the new material, and then another season, it happened right before Gen Con. I actually found that mildly annoying, but those were the "bigger" packs we are referring to.

Yup, Kotei phase, thanks to it's length (4 months) was always divided into two environments becasue of one expansion released during season. In defence of AEG i have to remind that scheduled preview system that officially spoiled whole expansion was completed before premiere. And cards were tournament legal 1 month after street date.

[quote]I've already stated why it's a bad thing. Do you read my posts or what? I said that I'd like to play a particular deck at more than one major tourney before redesign.[/quote]

Well if it can help you feel better : during ANR competitive season last two years (2015/2016) I remember going to two or three tournaments a month. As long as you are willing to travel a bit (like for me : Benelux + West Germany) it's really easy to do.

31 minutes ago, MrMenthe said:

[quote]I've already stated why it's a bad thing. Do you read my posts or what? I said that I'd like to play a particular deck at more than one major tourney before redesign.[/quote]

Well if it can help you feel better : during ANR competitive season last two years (2015/2016) I remember going to two or three tournaments a month. As long as you are willing to travel a bit (like for me : Benelux + West Germany) it's really easy to do.

Right... I'm not talking regular store tournament nights. I'm referring more to major Kotei level and above tournaments.

7 hours ago, Sparks Duh said:

It wouldn't matter to ANYONE, really. If you want to spend $15/ month for an expansion, that's what you will be paying either way. Trying to say it's different doesn't make it different. If you're willing to spend $15/ month on an expansion, but the expansion comes out every 3 months, then put $15/ month away and get the expansion with the same amount as you would pay anyway. Math is not hard.

Human nature is such that a person might balk at a $45 dollar money drop once every three months, but be very willing to do $15 one a month. The math might be the same, but people are sometime just not as "rational" as you might expect when it comes to purchasing decisions. The amount of money over time is the same, but the emotion and thought process behind the individual purchase decisions is different for many people, even if it might not be different for you. Supermarkets sell stuff for $4.99 instead of $5.00 because as much as we objectively realize those prices are basically the same our subconscious minds automatically "feel" $4.99 to be cheaper.

FFG is going to decide the release schedule that gets them better profits.