I was talking elsewhere about the standoffish nature of $90 in a month for some people and I got to wondering: is there any reason why the cycles have to be 6 packs? Could they instead be 4 packs 3 times a year?

The 6-in-6 was a specifically to break up the slower changes in the meta to bigger, more immediate changes. MtG (unless they've changed since I last played 8 years ago) releases 3 cycles per year, SW Destiny releases 3 cycles per year, and we'll be receiving new clan roles 3 times per year.

My initial concern would be balancing and if they could pack the theme(s) they usually do in an 80 card count.

Personally, I'd rather have a single box at $90 every six months or $60 every four, but there have been enough arguments made for and against that way of thinking so I'll focus on the cycle cut.

Obviously, they couldn't do this in the next cycle (or even the 2 after that) because that should be in the printing/releasing cycle already and they build and test whole cycles as is, but if it were reasonable to change to it in a year and a half would that be something anyone would be interested in?

2 hours ago, Duciris said:

I was talking elsewhere about the standoffish nature of $90 in a month for some people and I got to wondering: is there any reason why the cycles have to be 6 packs? Could they instead be 4 packs 3 times a year?

The 6-in-6 was a specifically to break up the slower changes in the meta to bigger, more immediate changes. MtG (unless they've changed since I last played 8 years ago) releases 3 cycles per year, SW Destiny releases 3 cycles per year, and we'll be receiving new clan roles 3 times per year.

My initial concern would be balancing and if they could pack the theme(s) they usually do in an 80 card count.

Personally, I'd rather have a single box at $90 every six months or $60 every four, but there have been enough arguments made for and against that way of thinking so I'll focus on the cycle cut.

Obviously, they couldn't do this in the next cycle (or even the 2 after that) because that should be in the printing/releasing cycle already and they build and test whole cycles as is, but if it were reasonable to change to it in a year and a half would that be something anyone would be interested in?

4 months without release is pretty rough for keeping interest.

Given the current "cycle" is clan packs, won't there have to be at least 7 or 8 of them?

And then, if rumors prove true, there will be a big box expansion set.

So I think the cycle system has already been broken up.

I'd prefer the cycles in single packs over 6 packs in 6 weeks (less packaging to dispose of). But I'd rather have a pack each month, so the meta shifts a little each time, rather than in fits and starts.

I'll just keep repeating this until someone pretends to care about my opinion for five seconds before laughing at me notices: make it 6-in-12. It dampens the "shock" aspect of buying all six packs in a month-and-a-half, and spreads things out so that the dry spells between cycles are shorter.

On 9/26/2018 at 4:15 PM, Ignithas said:

4 months without release is pretty rough for keeping interest.  

If they are larger releases, absolutely not. Magics releases are spread out that way. The old L5R CCG was spread out that way, and people kept interest just fine. Now FFG would need to keep us on the hok by teasing cards more often and probably giving us more fictions, but if they bundled each cycle to a large release every 4 to 6 months it could be very healthy.

2 hours ago, TheHobgoblyn said:

Given the current "cycle" is clan packs, won't there have to be at least 7 or 8 of them?

And then, if rumors prove true, there will be a big box expansion set.

So I think the cycle system has already been broken up.

LCG cycles have been 6 packs. The clan packs are evergreen and independent, spaced between the cycles the way the deluxes have been for other games.

1 hour ago, Mangod said:

I'll just keep repeating this until someone pretends to care about my opinion for five seconds before laughing at me notices: make it 6-in-12. It dampens the "shock" aspect of buying all six packs in a month-and-a-half, and spreads things out so that the dry spells between cycles are shorter.

Every 2 weeks for a cycle? Those are the same desired results I'm suggesting.

Packs often aren't balanced within themselves very well (one may be great for Phoenix but very meh for Crab) which is the value of having complete cycles released before tournaments. I'm suggesting a middle ground between traditional release cycle and the 6-in-6: complete card pools being available quickly, but not crushing some with sticker-shock.

On ‎9‎/‎26‎/‎2018 at 4:15 PM, Ignithas said:

4 months without release is pretty rough for keeping interest.

Were at 6 months right now. Clan packs are outside the given release cycle (sort of); Cycle I released Nov 9 - Dec 14 and then Cycle II didn't start coming out until Jun 28. The Phoenix clan pack released Apr 5, so it somewhat broke up the lull.

Ostensibly, once the 7 clan packs release they won't be adding an other product in that vein. If they increase the release schedule (as they said) then that will phase out faster.

If we take the 6-pack-cycles in a vacuum, it's five-and-a-half months between product. The 4-in-6 would be a three month lull between finish and start.

39 minutes ago, Duciris said:

LCG cycles have been 6 packs. The clan packs are evergreen and independent, spaced between the cycles the way the deluxes have been for other games.

Okay, I didn't know that.

To be honest, I have to pay a ridiculous amount for shipping, so I only buy once every 6 months once the whole cycle is out and I actually thought they were being released 1 per month rather than 1 per a week for a month and a half.

1 pack every 6 months would seem to be the best release schedule to me-- and it looks like they are creating the right amount of cards to have that release schedule, it would just be a matter of delaying the release.

If it is a $15 pack a month, it becomes almost like a simply monthly subscription. I don't know how big of a shift in the meta a single pack tends to cause, maybe it would cause wonky results in tournaments if in the second month of a tournament, 20 cards entered into the game. But-- don't all card games have to deal with that in a way?

I mean, they could literally sell the cards on subscription model that way too-- just sign up once and may the maybe $20 a month (to cover shipping) and they will just automatically charge you and send you your monthly set.

I think I like the release as it is now, especially when you consider the role rotations that occur. As they stand now, you should be able to get some pretty dynamic changes in the metagame on a more frequent basis. If they are spread out of larger amounts of time and less frequent then you won't really get a variety of play. You'll end up with something more like what we had at the beginning of last year where it was core only which got figured out really quickly, then core plus Imperial cycle which was solved pretty fast and needed the RL to change things up a bit, not much, but a little.

If the card releases are spaced out more then they increase the chances that the metagame will go through periods of time where it's pretty stale and only changes when new cards come out, which defeats the purpose of role rotations.

I think FFG's commitment to accelerate the release of the remaining clan packs, and a new product that is not a clan pack or start of a new cycle, is signaling that they are trying to change up the distribution model a little bit to complement the role rotations.

12 hours ago, Duciris said:

LCG cycles have been 6 packs. The clan packs are evergreen and independent, spaced between the cycles the way the deluxes have been for other games.

Every 2 weeks for a cycle? Those are the same desired results I'm suggesting.

Packs often aren't balanced within themselves very well (one may be great for Phoenix but very meh for Crab) which is the value of having complete cycles released before tournaments. I'm suggesting a middle ground between traditional release cycle and the 6-in-6: complete card pools being available quickly, but not crushing some with sticker-shock.

Were at 6 months right now. Clan packs are outside the given release cycle (sort of); Cycle I released Nov 9 - Dec 14 and then Cycle II didn't start coming out until Jun 28. The Phoenix clan pack released Apr 5, so it somewhat broke up the lull.

Ostensibly, once the 7 clan packs release they won't be adding an other product in that vein. If they increase the release schedule (as they said) then that will phase out faster.

If we take the 6-pack-cycles in a vacuum, it's five-and-a-half months between product. The 4-in-6 would be a three month lull between finish and start.

To be fair, the whole 6-in-6 strategy is already a sign of changes from normal LCG release strategies. And they already made it official that the rest of the clan packs will release by the end of next year, so I'm guessing they're abandoning the 1 clan pack between cycles strategy, too. Plus there's the upcoming announcement of a new product that supposedly isn't a clan pack or a dynasty pack cycle, which we have little beyond player speculation as to what it will be.

I have a feeling this next year will bring some changes to the release cycle, and who knows how they're going to handle designing and testing all those clan packs on top of whatever else they decide to release during the year. Whatever they decide to do going forward, we're not going to have a good feel for how it runs over the course of a year until 2020 at the earliest.

I signed up for monthly minor expense for pack and minor but continual shifts in the meta, and that's still what I want.

On 9/29/2018 at 2:24 AM, Brekekekiwi said:

I signed up for monthly minor expense for pack and minor but continual shifts in the meta, and that's still what I want.

That's what I expected coming in to it as well. Now I'm behind by the entire elemental cycle and will be behind on Scorpion because of the bunched release schedule. My fault for not having the money, but still.

The problem with bigger packs could be keeping peoples attention or overwhelming players.

My local area lost over half of the participants as they felt overwhelmed with the quick release schedule. Most of them come from miniature gaming or other LCGs where the release is slower. So, having the same amount of cards in a smaller time frame would not help the problems.

As some others stated earlier, with less frequent release people would feel like the meta would be solved faster. This may be a caused by low density of players or the local meta does not change enough.

These two issues are not unique to L5R, but as L5R is the experimental game we may seem some changes that will make the game release schedule more palatable.

I like the small packs over everything in one box. It lets people buy fewer packs upfront to build a deck, or skip a pack that doesn't have anything relevant. 6 in 6 schedule accommodates the most people's preferences. If you only want to spend $15 a month, that's all you have to spend. If you want everything right away, you can do that too. I guess the people that get left out are those that want to be fully competitive and only spend $15 a month. Someone's always going to be unhappy, but this seems like the best solution for the most people.

I'd agree, except that this method creates lulls of six months where the FLGS is quieter, the message boards are quieter, the podcasts have less to talk about and generally the fun community side of the hobby, that I find to be a huge draw, is quashed.

Plenty of community chatter on the discord, and a fair amount on Facebook. they're active regardless of new cards/announcements. Honestly I think these official boards are just among the least populated.

I dislike 6-in-6 weeks, primarily due to sorting and deck tuning. Don't see much point to changing a card or two in my deck every week for a month and a half so I would much rather do it all at once. Never played any other LCGs so I have no firsthand experience of 6-in-6 months but I would prefer that or a single large release every few months to the 6-week model.

I'll be honest upfront - I don't play the LCG. So take that for what it's worth.

Now, related, the reason I don't play the LCG is the 6-in-6 model. I don't have the money to keep up with that, so I just didn't bother trying.

As I understand it, any pricing/packing model is not done out of player convenience but profitability, money does speak the loudest as a vote. I'd personally argue that 3 cores is the hardest pill to swallow for casuals getting in the game. I understand the model is there because not everyone wants to buy into the game immediately, 1 core does create a "demo experience".

A part of me wonders if there could have been a 3-core in one box released, trimming the pennies from the packing of the other 2 cores to make it.

1 hour ago, Hida Jitenno said:

I'll be honest upfront - I don't play the LCG. So take that for what it's worth.

Now, related, the reason I don't play the LCG is the 6-in-6 model. I don't have the money to keep up with that, so I just didn't bother trying.

So, if it was a pack per month instead, that would make it more affordable?

One pack per month, for 12 months, at $15 a piece, = $180.

Six packs in six weeks, twice a year, = $180.

Take the $15 you would've spent on the pack that month and stash it in an envelope until the set gets released. Or heck, once they're all released, then you can just buy one a month, until the next set.

21 minutes ago, twinstarbmc said:

So, if it was a pack per month instead, that would make it more affordable?

One pack per month, for 12 months, at $15 a piece, = $180.

Six packs in six weeks, twice a year, = $180.

Take the $15 you would've spent on the pack that month and stash it in an envelope until the set gets released. Or heck, once they're all released, then you can just buy one a month, until the next set.

Do I only need to buy one of each pack, or like the starter set, do I need multiples? Also my former local hobby store didn't regularly stock it, so they wanted to be sure I would buy all six, instead of ordering one per month for me instead.

5 minutes ago, Hida Jitenno said:

Do I only need to buy one of each pack, or like the starter set, do I need multiples? Also my former local hobby store didn't regularly stock it, so they wanted to be sure I would buy all six, instead of ordering one per month for me instead.

The starter box is the only thing you "need" multiple copies of, if you want a full 3 copies of every card. The expansion packs, however, each pack contains a full playset of 20 cards, so you only need one copy to get all the cards (unless you want to run 3x of the same card in more than one deck).