5 minutes ago, Myrion said:

Fallout 3 can't "fix" Fallout 2's flaws, because it's a different game.

Fallout 3's devs do not want you to play Fallout 2. Otherwise, they would just made an expansion to it instead of a sequel.

Same for Fallout 4's devs compared to Fallout New Vegas' ones.

But it is true that for some, Fallout 3+ are not true Fallout games (New Vegas being more or less an exception?). Unlike Wasteland vs Wasteland 2?

When do we get a L5R videogame? A tactical RPG one??? Kickstarter?

Just now, C3gorach said:

Yeah, can we agree thoughthat Fallout 3 is still a Fallout game that Fallout funs will enjoy?

Yes, but i'd like to replace "will" with "may".

...that's like...imagine you are out, waiting for your bus ride home. It's very cold and you wish your outfit included something that covers your legs instead of a skirt. So you decide to fix it next time by wearing pants.

And then someone yells at you that you didn't fix the problem, because you are wearing something else instead of a skirt, and the proper answer would be to keep wearing skirt but add leg warmers O_o.

If a game suffered from X, and you design your game, you can say that "after witnessing and observing X, we designed our game in a way that specifically addresses X and makes sure it doesn't degrade the play experience". It's like:

1. Baldur's Gate 1 had a problem with it's companions having little next to no personality outside of their introductory quests,

2. Baldur's Gate 2 (which isn't the same game) fixed that by putting bigger emphasis on companions, giving them more lines and interactions

Or "Icewind Dale 2 acknowleded the problem of Baldur's Gate lacking options in the sphere of character build customization, so it used customizable level ups in order to allow more variety of builds for your party!"

Or, a popular one, "base-building component of RTS games was outdated design, so modern RTS games fix that by replacing base building with [insert their answer to this perceived problem]"

4 minutes ago, kempy said:

Yes, but i'd like to replace "will" with "may".

I can't go any lower than "probably"sorry...

Call me a "cult of the new", but to me the old Legend of the Five Rings was based on a very outdated design and much like Magic The Gathering creating new mechanics for it with new editions really wasn't doing anything to attract me to it. Its just an opinion but I love the game world, I love the concept but mechanically speaking it was contrived and dated. Mechanical link to theme in modern LCG is so much stronger these days and its done in a far more streamlined fashion in modern designs. From what I have read about the rules of the game this is the direction this game is taking as well. I understand that old school fans who still love and play the old game might find this sort of change not to their liking but I can't imagine anyone who plays any of the FFG LCG's could claim that the old Legend of the Five Rings is objectively a better design then say Game of Thrones 2nd edition or Warhammer Conquest for example.

2 hours ago, WHW said:

...that's like...imagine you are out, waiting for your bus ride home. It's very cold and you wish your outfit included something that covers your legs instead of a skirt. So you decide to fix it next time by wearing pants.

Here's the issue, I think. I don't think anyone would disagree that the decision to wear pants rather than a skirt has successfully solved the issue. But no one would refer to the pants as a "streamlined and improved skirt".

Personally, I feel that the LCG has so few elements in common with the CCG (once the IP and elements common to pretty much every CCG/LCG are removed) that it has to be considered its own thing rather than a correction/improvement to the old game. I don't mind when people say "the new LCG avoids the pitfalls and issues the old CCG had", but I view it as a clean break rather than fixing the old.

4 hours ago, BigKahuna said:

Call me a "cult of the new", but to me the old Legend of the Five Rings was based on a very outdated design and much like Magic The Gathering creating new mechanics for it with new editions really wasn't doing anything to attract me to it.

Well, that's why M:TG passed the test of Time and still is the most played CCG in the world, because of a thing called coherence. And also for being a great game, easy enough to learn, difficult enough to master.

On the other hand, AGOT1 was a solid game and the most played LCG and FFG decided a reboot was needed (IMO, not really)... they did said reboot and AGOT2 is not the most played LCG anymore, losing a good amount of players due to FFG greediness and turning the game apart.

In this case, and having the names of French and that Brad something guy in the list of design team, they wanted to change the design and derive it from the original design on purpose, on the opposite of what Lukas did with A:NR when he was humble enough to research and even consulted with Phd. Richard Garfield to maintain the game the most identical as possible to the original design.
And why do I say this? Well, just check the video Team Covenant did with the design panel of this game to see for yourselves how this design team made a lousy research of the original game, when French itself had to confirm with his fellow designers if the game had 4 wincons in its original concept (he turns and asks "what have they had, 4 win conditions?!") and how that Brad guy talked about this being a game with "this honor thing going on in the background".
For me and looking how those guys talked about the original L5R proves that they didn't made that "research" into how this game was played, and created this abomination instead.

You've seen a few cards? you don't know the rules. Your psychic abilities indeed know no bounds.

It's going to really suck to be you when the game is a success. You'll probably still be round giving sage advice on how everything is horrible, so that will be fun!

No, I don't think so. I'm pretty sure MtG is still around because of a thing called the "Network Effect". It's sticking around because it's the most popular thing and most people aren't gonna try and start up a game group for anything else, if all the people who might join are already committed to magic.

The "honor thing" really did go on in the background. It was one of the ways that the game could be played essentially non-interactively. One of the common complaints. You know, those that almost everyone keeps acknowledging, even if they enjoyed the game?

Also, what's it with emphasizing that Garfield has a PhD? He knows Maths, I'm sure that's not a bad thing for a game designer, but does it matter?

5 minutes ago, oDESGOSTO said:

abomination

Lmao. The game might not end up being good, but in no way is it an "abomination".

I may be wrong, but it seems the main argument right now is "It's different". And that different is inherently bad.

I think some of these changes look interesting. Would like to see how it plays before going "Awesome" or "Abomination" personally.

yea that statement is off the charts.

Edit: not cool and went over the top

1 minute ago, Myrion said:

No, I don't think so. I'm pretty sure MtG is still around because of a thing called the "Network Effect". It's sticking around because it's the most popular thing and most people aren't gonna try and start up a game group for anything else, if all the people who might join are already committed to magic.
...
Also, what's it with emphasizing that Garfield has a PhD? He knows Maths, I'm sure that's not a bad thing for a game designer, but does it matter?

M:TG had the oldest resource system in any xCG ever. And from a design POV it's one of the worst resource systems ever.
Still... the game uses it. And is still being played.
About the "network effect", I recognize it. But if a game is dull, say Yugioh or Pokemon or any other japanese crappy xCG, the game will not have the success or impact M:TG has.
I remember a game that tried to break through the market, being labeled "better M:TG" or "MTG 2.0"... said game also had 1M USD event to catch people and had support from Team Covenant as well. That game is now dead and buried. Yes, it was The Spoils, the next big thing. So, network effect didn't saved those games. Some are still being played around but not in the same way MTG is.

And I respect Richard Garfield a lot. He designed and is still designing some of the best games in the market. I value that. And also his honorific title.

2 minutes ago, Dovla said:

Yea the guy is borderline crazy, i hope he can't sleep at night due to bitterness

Hey, now. We can disagree with people without ad hominem attacks or wishing harm upon them. Let's not start a flame war here!

4 minutes ago, RandomJC said:

I may be wrong, but it seems the main argument right now is "It's different". And that different is inherently bad.

I think some of these changes look interesting. Would like to see how it plays before going "Awesome" or "Abomination" personally.

You know Poker, right?!

Parker Bros. makes a new game, called Poker, Living Poker Game. It plays with 52 cards, all from the same suit. But, still Poker. And with no Flush in hand rating.
Is it different? Yes. Is it Poker? It depends on the level of excitement of a forum user will have. Is it an abomination? From me, honestly is, because it's not Poker. At least not for me. Is... a random card game set in Roku... Poker!

1 minute ago, oDESGOSTO said:

M:TG had the oldest resource system in any xCG ever. And from a design POV it's one of the worst resource systems ever.
Still... the game uses it. And is still being played.

The Mana system in Magic is easily the worst part game. However, the various design teams know this and new sets are designed accordingly.

Magic is going strong because Wizards has smart designers, the game has a strong secondary market, and the growth of casual formats like Commander keep people wanting to play. Not to mention the whole psychology of booster packs.

3 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

Hey, now. We can disagree with people without ad hominem attacks or wishing harm upon them. Let's not start a flame war here!

Re-read the argument post that was not an 'ad hominem' attack (arguable on the wishing harm and even then if you think thats wishing harm then your internet forum use is low). Indeed technically you just issued a strawman by attempting to claim he had carried out an 'ad hominem' attack.

Plus you appear to have no sense of humour as the respondee was funny as oDesg does appear really bitter about the game generally and imaging teeth grinding in anger at not being listened to is amusing.

Anyone else think that argument thread would cause more problems than it solved, plus!, no doubt, my own response can be torn to pieces on some weird fallacy. C'est la vie

34 minutes ago, oDESGOSTO said:

For me and looking how those guys talked about the original L5R proves that they didn't made that "research" into how this game was played, and created this abomination instead.

I would like to make it clear - I am not offensive here, but...

I believe that you jump to conclusions too fast, I can see logic behind your words, but this logic is flawed.
I remember your post about new honor/draw mechanic, and how "people will always draw five"....
Have you even though this one before typing? I dare you do this 2-3 times in a row, and all I have to do to win against you is to bid 1 those 2-3 times as your honor will reach 0.
And thats not the only issue with this logic.

Have you bothered enough ( claiming that developers didnt bother enough to check old 5lr - which tbh I am great fan of) to check the fate cost of the cards? Before typing about card advantage ?
In L5R CCG most of your fate deck (conflick deck in new implementation) havent got a resource cost, those were actions (often with specific requirements to meet), but from what we've seen that 60-90% cost percentage may shift by a lot. We may end up with 80% of conflict deck having cost to play!
If let's say board has the same state, both of us having 5 fate worth of units, with simmilar stats lets say, and you bid 5 against my 2-3, now let's say we have
me with one cost 0 card, one 1f and one 2 f
you with two cost 0 cards, 2f and one 2f
and both of us having 2 fate left

We do have 4 possible conflicts.
Where is that huge card advantage you are so afraid of?

To put it short, please stay as open minded and positive as possible, don't take anything as granted. Sure the examples I mentioned above may be off, we do not know.
That is why we shouldn't jump to conclusions too fast.

I wish you most of fun with new L5R which we are all waiting for.

On 4/24/2017 at 2:27 PM, Matrim said:

Re-read the argument post that was not an 'ad hominem' attack (arguable on the wishing harm and even then if you think thats wishing harm then your internet forum use is low). Indeed technically you just issued a strawman by attempting to claim he had carried out an 'ad hominem' attack.

Plus you appear to have no sense of humour as the respondee was funny as oDesg does appear really bitter about the game generally and imaging teeth grinding in anger at not being listened to is amusing.

Anyone else think that argument thread would cause more problems than it solved, plus!, no doubt, my own response can be torn to pieces on some weird fallacy. C'est la vie

It actually was an ad hominem attack, thank you. It did not address oDESGOSTO's argument, but instead attacked the person making it: the very definition of "ad hominem".

As for a sense of humor, I find a good many things funny, but a real person wishing harm (physical or mental) on another real person has never been one of them.

I fully disagree with oDESGOSTO's position and support those who take an opposing view. However, let's debate the issues rather than letting it get personal.

8 minutes ago, oDESGOSTO said:

You know Poker, right?!

Parker Bros. makes a new game, called Poker, Living Poker Game. It plays with 52 cards, all from the same suit. But, still Poker. And with no Flush in hand rating.
Is it different? Yes. Is it Poker? It depends on the level of excitement of a forum user will have. Is it an abomination? From me, honestly is, because it's not Poker. At least not for me. Is... a random card game set in Roku... Poker!

Are we talking 5 Card Draw Poker? 6 Card Stud? High-Low? Texas Hold'em? Irish Poker? Lowball?

These games to play differently. Personally not a fan of High-Low, but I do like some straight 5 Card or Texas Hold'em.

I think you're exaggerating this for your own benefit, to be honest. But I'm not here to convince you.

I've been reading this thread and soaking it all in. As I didn't play L5R CCG/RPG I was at first a bit worried about the amount of negativity (in percentage terms) going around on the announcement day. This thread makes me feel a lot better. Firstly, because it seems a lot of those that had the initial shock are now coming around to at least giving the LCG a chance. Secondly, because all the negative comments center around the point that the new LCG is different than the CCG. Not that the LCG is worse, just different. Which of course makes sense, because you can't judge a game yet based on one announcement, you can just say it's different.

I get it, you were passionate about something and someone is changing that beyond your control, but please be open-minded to the fact that the LCG may in fact be better than the CCG (or at least equal). We just don't know yet, but I for one am planning on buying three Core Sets as soon as I can.

1 minute ago, Danwarr said:

The Mana system in Magic is easily the worst part game. However, the various design teams know this and new sets are designed accordingly.

Magic is going strong because Wizards has smart designers, the game has a strong secondary market, and the growth of casual formats like Commander keep people wanting to play. Not to mention the whole psychology of booster packs.

The game has its merit too.

WOTC also designed several other games. And they did perished. V:TES, BattleTech CCG (aquired) and Star Wars (aquired). Star Wars (Decipher) was even competing with M:TG at some time.
I don't see a reason why only one game survived the test of time if it was merit of the design team when that design team also worked in different products.

When a game is solid, is solid, period. AGOT1 was solid. It was the most played LCG with people playing both formats (Joust and Melee) with a major part of said players not even knowing the lore of the game. I talk for myself, I got into AGOT1 because of the game and how it was played. And it was hands down the best xCG in the market back then. And I had 0 knowledge about A Song of Ice and Fire.
You can see this point this last Worlds, where a game like Android: Netrunner was the most played LCG in Worlds, a game competing against games like AGOT2 (with all the hype and success of the HBO series), Star Wars (well, it's Star Wars) and Conquest (WH:40K is huge among the hobby gamers). And the most played game was the one that was thematically weaker. But a solid game. That passed through the test of time. Just like Magic.

22 minutes ago, Matrim said:

(...) as oDesg does appear really bitter about the game generally and imaging teeth grinding in anger at not being listened to is amusing.

The funny part is that his name means "theBITTERNESS" in portuguese. Pretty fitting.

Maybe the Spoils was supposed to be a big thing, but it never even registered here. I only know the name because it's advertised on a few deckboxes I own for Magic.

And @Danwarr has the right of it: Magic has almost everything going for it apart from the resource system and a few other legacy design issues.

• Strong secondary market and associated business because of the random boosters
• HUGE player base
• Casual formats
• Draft formats and random boosters
• Multiplayer
• Themes for everyone!
  • Currently: Egypt
  • Previously: Vampires and Werewolves, Eldritch Horror, Greek Myth, Steampunk, Ice Age, Feuding Guilds, Japanese Myth and many more!
• Did I mention random boosters? **** for your wallet but so good at exploiting human psychology
• Solid tournament support and commented games[1]
• Sheer presence at game shops and non-game shops
• Rares and Mythics, see Random Boosters

4 minutes ago, oDESGOSTO said:

You can see this point this last Worlds, where a game like Android: Netrunner was the most played LCG in Worlds, a game competing against games like AGOT2 (with all the hype and success of the HBO series), Star Wars (well, it's Star Wars) and Conquest (WH:40K is huge among the hobby gamers). And the most played game was the one that was thematically weaker. But a solid game. That passed through the test of time. Just like Magic.

Netrunner is not thematically weaker than any of those games. It is constantly considered one of the strongest thematic games in the tabletop gaming community for really emphasizing the hacker vs corporation feeling. Granted, it has a less recognizable IP compared to ASoIaF, 40k, and Star Wars, but Android: Netrunner is a very strong game thematically. Many people cite this as a reason they go into the game in the first place.

It's also been known for awhile that Netrunner was FFG's strongest LCG following the demise of GoT 1.0 a couple years ago. Netrunner had a highly engaged international competitive community. However, veterans of the game have been leaving in droves following this past Worlds. Many are unhappy with FFG's product management and are waiting on rotation to "fix" the game.

If you are just going to compare sheer numbers, X-Wing is FFG's strongest product and had more players at Worlds than Netrunner this past year.

As for GoT 2.0 and 40k Conquest, I personally feel like both of those games have some design issues as well as feeling too much like a standard "MTG dude-basher". Additionally, I never fully bought into those games as I was personally quite invested in Netrunner and just found that game much more intriguing and interesting to play and construct decks for.

Bringing this back to L5R, the FFG reboot at least deserves a chance before fully writing it off I think. Yes, it's very different from Old L5R based on everything I've read. However, Nate, Brad, and Erik's goal was to bring an L5R product into 2017 without all of the baggage of a 90s xCG. Based on what we know right now, it looks like they did that. GenCon is 115 days so we'll all get a better sense of everything in the next 3 months plus all of the information from GenCon.