On 7/22/2018 at 7:34 PM, bigbake132 said:

If they decide to not make a 3rd edition for Descent and not to continue supporting it physically, why not go into a different direction and make a Lord of the Rings version? They already have the rights for other LOTR games and can make it essentially how they did Star Wars. I for one would buy every product if they made a Lord of the Rings adventure/dungeon crawl game.

Now, if they decide to do 3E or continue to make physical content for Descent, then I understand not wanting two fantasy games competing with each other, but if no 3E, why not give it a try?

What an awwsome idea! I would buy this game too!! Dungeon crawler with LOTR theme, amazing. I would love to play it.

For Descent, I also don`t think it really needs a 3rd edition. Many rules updates can easily be done through erratas (whoever has money to buy this game has access to internet and can update the rules) just like they did with HoB. They have to make a significant change to justify a change to a 3rd edition, anyways, even then a conversion pack is a must, direct from basic box. I think that removing the option of playing against an overlord is really sad, I love playing as overlord.

Yeah. I Agree that they should keep the overlord as a player. Also, I would like them to explore on the possibility that the Overlord team might incorporate another player. Maybe an option that allows one player to control a liutenant or something like that, making the game playable for 2-6 players, as sometimes the player groups are bigger than 5. That would be cool.

What you guys think?

6 hours ago, topper30 said:

Yeah. I Agree that they should keep the overlord as a player. Also, I would like them to explore on the possibility that the Overlord team might incorporate another player. Maybe an option that allows one player to control a liutenant or something like that, making the game playable for 2-6 players, as sometimes the player groups are bigger than 5. That would be cool.

What you guys think?

It seems the 1 vs Many style game isn't very popular anymore. I highly suspect whatever iteration Descent takes, if there is an update, it will be a full coop game. The spike in interest over the app coop experience shows this is what the market wants.

40 minutes ago, Alcovitch said:

It seems the 1 vs Many style game isn't very popular anymore. I highly suspect whatever iteration Descent takes, if there is an update, it will be a full coop game. The spike in interest over the app coop experience shows this is what the market wants.

Yes. I can see that... BUT why take that pleasure away from the players, the pleasure of an overlord crushing the players.

It could have more than one mode of playing I guess. Why lose potential players by only implementing co-op? We should make a poll in the community... Unless they have already something for us all.

1 hour ago, topper30 said:

Yes. I can see that... BUT why take that pleasure away from the players, the pleasure of an overlord crushing the players.

It could have more than one mode of playing I guess. Why lose potential players by only implementing co-op? We should make a poll in the community... Unless they have already something for us all.

Well, from their perspective they'd be be gaining many more possible players by going all in on a good co-op experience. There's only so much time and resources to go around on a project. Where companies are concerned trying to make something for everyone usually means it's not that great at anything.

Personally I don't like road to legend as much standard 2e. Alot of the draw for 2e is in the tactics. Having the AI "deck" blunder around aimlessly just isn't as good an experience. Now they could make up for that with story, that's a perfectly fine way for an RPG-ish game to go. But a deep story has never been descents strong suit and turning it into a story experience (like mansions of madness) limits the replayability.

Curious to see if FFG has anything new to tell us this year. I am preparing myself to be disappointed yet again.

Having the 1 vs many as optional would be smart- if a group of players like the overlord style of play they can go with it, if not they can avoid it (it's correct that not all player groups like- or stick with- the 1 vs many, others do like it.)

I can side with the views that maybe the overlord can be problematic (all those game load and bias/OP sides debates/discussions, the players/overlord has no chance etc). Descent's overlord, as awesome as it is, has indeed often been its Achilles heel for many gamers from reviews, forums and those friends who don't like it (heathens *smiles*) - perhaps what seeded the idea of them doing a co op.

The fact we have the co op could give potential for different ways to play an updated edition- but they should keep the overlord as one of them, alternative play options could be a big selling point.

Players all controlling the enemy somehow is one option- what might work as the alternatives to overlord play for that which is the enemy the players face?

OL play should remain as an option though- it's still fun and somewhat unique, Descent would be lacking something without that option. And just a co op alternative wouldn't quite cut it either.

Maybe that's the delay- FFG can't quite square these circles yet .