Vyron said:

Is it FFG's fault or poor game design if people play it 100+ times in like a month's time and get bored with it enough to start looking for alternative modifications? I know it's a fun game and can be addicting, but still. If people played Dominion or Thunderstone that many times in that time after release, those people might be losing interest too. I guess part of what allows for LOTR: TCG to be played so much is the solo play ability, but still, a lot of games are going to get old quick if they are over played. It's kind of like a video game, if you buy a video game and spend 30 hours over a weekend playing it through it's completion, you might feel cheated. But if you play it for 2 hours a week, you might get more satisfaction from it with 15 weeks of play as opposed to 2 days.

Vyron said:

I'm not sure it's too much of an issue..

I think custom scenarios can only be a good thing, for instance. I also think the delay in the first adventure pack wasn't something FFG intended, and once they get going once per month the lack of scenarios won't really be that much of an issue. With new cards in each pack, I'm sure players will also want to see how those work against the older scenarios. Besides, I have even played scenario 3 properly yet anyway!

New rules seem to fall into two main catergories. Firstly, making it competitive, which for some people seems to be key (in which case I wonder why they purchased a co-op game?) and the second is scaling for either solo or 3 to 4 players. I do find the pure solo game very difficult but that could be due to the small card set and we don't really know whether FFG designed these scenarios in this way to offer up a taster and to hopefully get the buy in to thr adventure packs, does a solo player simply need a bigger card pool to beat scenario 3 with using spririt? or whether it was an oversight on FFG's part and they need to consider scaling going forward with the adventures. Until we see the next adventure pack I guess we won't really know.

I'm happy with what they are doing so far, and it's only a core starter set.

I'd be interested to see what other people say about other LCGs and whether the went through similar growing pains?

Vyron said:

IMO it's one of the best things to have when you have just launched a game and people are enthousiastic enough about it to play it that much that they bump against the limitations of the coreset. It's ever better if they stay enthausiastic enough about the game to invest more of their time and energy in it by making up new rules, scenario's heroes etc. It's similar to a srtoy in a narrative context. A story that's being told constantly changed and alters itself to the current storytellers and contexts. A story that has lost its juice/explanatory power/inspiratory power solidifies and dies. Meowmeowmeow.

Hahma said:

Well, my current # of logged plays for WWE Raw Deal tops 2,600 (since getting the first starters in August 2008) and the sad thing is I'm only getting to play it 48 times a month (down from the highs of 200+ plays a month). Wanted more decks, so now it takes longer to play all the decks . Interest isnt down at all.

Sorry for the above mess i don't know how i made it and i don't know how to fix it.

interesting thoughts, you guys... I am also inclined to think, that it is basically a good thing... I haven't lost interest at all, btw... it's just plain awesome...

just from a money perspective: I would really like this game to be around a couple of years, seeing as middle earth related ccgs seem to have a rather short lifespan... think about the possibilities, like quests in khand, mordor, nurn, you could even take alatar and pallando into consideration... who really knows, what happend in this timespan before frodo's adventure... the problem is, if the "masses" jump off the ship, just because they get too bored too easily - then again, that's a general problem of our society :S

so guys, get your friends together, show them the game and force them to buy a copy preferably at your local store, so you can get your local community going... the tournaments will follow then... and all will be good

Dam said:

Wow, wish I had that kind of time for gaming.

servant of the secret fire said:

Apples and oranges. I'm sorry you can't see how this would actually tear out the heart of the game and just not make any sense. I think we'll just have to go our separate ways on this one.

Trump said:

I just can't see how this is not make sense.Insteed of lucky draws from the top of the encounter deck a real person draws a number of cards and chooses what locations and monsters wants to add in the staging area and where he wants to deal each shadow effect.Nothing is change.Set up remains the same and you play all phases as you play them now.

Anyway as you said we 'll just have to go our separate ways on this one.

Hahma said:

if you buy a video game and spend 30 hours over a weekend playing it through it's completion, you might feel cheated. But if you play it for 2 hours a week, you might get more satisfaction from it with 15 weeks of play as opposed to 2 days.

jhaelen said:

Hahma said:

if you buy a video game and spend 30 hours over a weekend playing it through it's completion, you might feel cheated. But if you play it for 2 hours a week, you might get more satisfaction from it with 15 weeks of play as opposed to 2 days.

Huh?! For me it's the opposite. Playing a game that takes about 30 hours to play through spread over 15 weeks would be like watching a 90min movie in 5 minute spurts. Who'd want that?! The fewer breaks, the better.

I think this example is not right.We must see card games like online mmorpgs where you can spend a lot of hours but you want to play more.Look at WOW.It is out there for 5-6 years and people still spends more than 4 hours every day and it has 11 milion subs?This is happening cause it has many options.You can do pvp,pve,level up, take new gear etc.

Now imagine a card game with coop,pvp and new adventure packs every month(like those we will have every month) and you have a sure succes and with so many option the game will never be boring.

servant of the secret fire said:

Conversely, speaking for myself I purchased the game specifically because it was single player (in theory) and wasn't specifically a comp game.

One of the first articles on the game that FFG wrote was that it's whole premise was to try and thematically build up the idea of "the fellowship", and they did this by making it co-operative.

I understand your reasons for wanting it comp, but my slight worry is that if FFG did this, would it mean they had to detract from the idea that it was a co-op game. Would then then need to start balancing encounter cards that worked equally well in both co-op and comp modes? if they didn't one half of the community would start to complain that their "version" wasn't being properly supported.

I'd love for CoC LCG to become a co-operative and solo game because I love that genre, but i don't see it happening.

I think if people want a PvP mode, they should come up with their own home brew variant and let FFG stick to their original idea of building a highly thematic solo, co-op game.

pumpkin said:

I agree with you thats why i don't cry at forums why they didn't made this game both pvp and coop.As i said before i don't have a promblem with the coop mode.I bought this game cause it is Lotr and because i am a Bilbo player.My only promblem is that no one wants to play a coop card game so i can only enjoy the solo mode in this game and i play card games cause you can have fun with real people and not behind a screen like you do with a video or an online game.

jhaelen said:

Hahma said:

if you buy a video game and spend 30 hours over a weekend playing it through it's completion, you might feel cheated. But if you play it for 2 hours a week, you might get more satisfaction from it with 15 weeks of play as opposed to 2 days.

Huh?! For me it's the opposite. Playing a game that takes about 30 hours to play through spread over 15 weeks would be like watching a 90min movie in 5 minute spurts. Who'd want that?! The fewer breaks, the better.

Okay, well perhaps my example was perhaps a slight exaggeration with the 15 weeks. But if you spend $50 on a video game and spend 50 hours to play through it completely twice in one week's time after you buy it, are you going to blame the game company because you are bored with it? All I'm saying is that if some people choose to play a game of any kind more obsessively than casually, then I don't feel it's the game designer's fault if those people get tired of it quicker than the people that choose to play the game more casually.

Hahma said:

OK for me it boils down differently and also let me say that everything below is on the current state of the game. I have high hopes for it and love co-op games in general, but LOTR being a constructive card game is a different beast.

I can play AGOT repeatedly, against the same player, with the same deck, 5 or 6 times in a night without a problem. And then I can do that weekly and still be challenged. This is largely because of the opponent. The opponent starts waking up to my strategies, so I tweak my deck. I burn him with a new strategy and he then evolves his deck too. It's a process that I enjoy a lot.

In LOTR the opponent is static, so the wrestling of tactics, strategy and wills is missing from the gameplay.

And lets go back to the D&D element for a second but lets forget the DM entirely. D&D is a coop game run in scenarios, much like LOTR LCG. I dont know about others, but we dont play through the scenarios more than once. It is relatively static regardless of the random aspect of the dice and people's decisions.

Sure LOTR can change slightly from scenario to scenario, but essentially the story is the same . . . through the woods, up the river, rescue a hero from the dungeon. Same objectives, same bosses, etc.

For me this is where it falls down at the moment. The game seems to be too static for my liking. Once we have played through each of the scenarios once, that's it. There is no real reason changing a deck, the opponent is static with a fixed card pool.
This may get better over time, it could also get worse as the player card pool gets bigger.

I am just concerned that the scenarios dont have the legs to carry the game enough on their own with the other dynamics of LCGs

Yeah, it's certainly a different animal for sure. Like you said, with the opponent being static, it is a different kind of game than the others you mentioned and other non co-op games. This is my first solo/co-op game, and I see what people are concerned with. But truthfully, I think that's why I'm treating it differently than other games because of the static opponent. I know I can play a game like Heroscape or Summoner Wars many times a week and the games will be different as there are different maps/armies for Heroscape and different faction deck builds for Summoner Wars. Also, different opponents have different play styles whereas some are more aggressive, some more conservative, some are more strategic while some are more random. So there is a lot more potential variety in games like that.

When I saw that this core set came with 3 scenarios, I kind of figured right away that I wanted to take my time with the game and not beat it too soon because then I might feel like some other people here in that there's not much else to accomplish. With the Adventure Packs coming out later than expected, I really am going to try to make this experience last. I'm playing solo and had one co-op game when I really didn't have all the rules down. So I'm hoping to savor the experience by getting as much solo play as possible out of it, get a lot of two-player co-op play with my nephew and then to be able to teach my 8 year-old twin daughters the game and have fun with their experience. Then as the Adventure Packs churn out, I can do the same again with solo, co-op and with the kids. I've also been playing other games in-between sessions with this game, so that helps. Hopefully this plan will help me at least get the most out of the game.

servant of the secret fire said:

jhaelen said:

Hahma said:

if you buy a video game and spend 30 hours over a weekend playing it through it's completion, you might feel cheated. But if you play it for 2 hours a week, you might get more satisfaction from it with 15 weeks of play as opposed to 2 days.

Huh?! For me it's the opposite. Playing a game that takes about 30 hours to play through spread over 15 weeks would be like watching a 90min movie in 5 minute spurts. Who'd want that?! The fewer breaks, the better.

I think this example is not right.We must see card games like online mmorpgs where you can spend a lot of hours but you want to play more.Look at WOW.It is out there for 5-6 years and people still spends more than 4 hours every day and it has 11 milion subs?This is happening cause it has many options.You can do pvp,pve,level up, take new gear etc.

Now imagine a card game with coop,pvp and new adventure packs every month(like those we will have every month) and you have a sure succes and with so many option the game will never be boring.

Well being that I'll be 44 next month, I'm probably not one of the ones playing an online video game for 4 hours a day. With work, family and a lot to do around the house, that kind of time is a luxury that I personally can't enjoy (but it would be cool!). I guess the video games I was more referring to were the ones that you don't play online.

But anyway, sure it would be great to have a card game the way you mentioned. I don't know if this game can get the pvp aspect into it, but perhaps they can work in more options for the spheres to allow more deck building variety and also more options in scenarios that continue to be creative and replayable. Are there other games that have the versatility of being capable of both co-op and pvp play? That would be interesting.

servant of the secret fire said:

The reason why (some) people cannot stop playing WoW is because the game is consciously designed to be addictive:

There are a variety of mechanisms in MMORPGs that may encourage obsessive usage. MMORPGs employ well-known behavioral conditioning principles from psychology that reinforce repetitive actions through an elaborate system of scheduled rewards. In effect, the game rewards players to perform increasingly tedious tasks and seduces the player to “play” industriously. These environments also encourage making friends or joining guilds that then become sources of social obligations. (quoted from www.nickyee.com/daedalus/gateway_addiction.html)

In other words, the reason why people keep playing MMORPGs is almost the opposite of what you claim. It's the constant encouragement to engage in repetitive actions by elaborate reward systems, reinforced by peer pressure.

the above poster's text says it all... long live CARD AND BOARD GAMES the computer is the devil's work, my child, keep away from it

jhaelen said:

Yea this is true but can you imagine a mmorpg without all those options?

Lets take pve for example.What makes pve players do the same dungeon over and over again?I think the answer is the reward.Now tell them that they must do the same dungeon over and over again just to complete it and you have a dead dungeon.

I think Lotr is like pve(maybe i am wrong).You must complete a scenario but in the end you don't get a reward.Wen you have completed it more than once you have no reason to do it again.

Many can say that you can create a new deck and try to win the same scenario with different sphere combo but can anyone here tell me that this took you more than 2 weeks?I don't play more than 2-3 hours a day(and sometimes i play only 3-4 times a week) and i don't have any new combos to try after the first 15 days with 3 quests.With only 1 new quest every month it will be worst and don't tell me that with the new cards the first scenario will be a challenge and i am almost sure that with the new cards not even second scenario will be a challenge.

The only thing that holds me in this game is that i am a huge fun of Tolkien and i make my own scenarios just to have fun.

Is this the type of game that is meant to be played as much as other games? Do people play co-op games like Pandemic or Castle Ravenloft (which can be played solo) as much as other games?

Any game should be able to be played as often as people want and not as some have said in smaller doses than other games.

Hahma said:

No. I think Lotr is for more casual players and not for hardcore players.This is not FFG's fault but my fault.I just wanted a Lotr game which i can play it a lot and have it as a hobby.I think i must wait for the other 2 Lotr games (the video game war in the north and the rpg) for a full Tolkien experience.

I will not quit this game but i will have it as more casual game experience.

Toqtamish said:

Perhaps the smaller doses suggested is based on that a game like this is a little more limited than others because it's scenario and deck building driven and at the moment anyway, there is a limit to both the scenarios and deck building options. Games where you play against others can have many more options for variety as you can play against different people and they can have different enough play styles to make games different enough to play a lot and still feel fresh. Add to that, if those games are deck/army building, then that adds even more variety in play.

So while I agree that a game should be able to be played as often as people want to, it doesn't mean that every game is going to feel as fresh after X amount of game played. Perhaps in a year or so, there will be enough releases of Adventure Packs and whatnot to make this game to be played 50-100 times a month and feel fresh every time. At the moment however, for a game system that relies on future releases to keep the game fresh, it's still in its infancy and somewhat limited.

I've played a ton of Heroscape over the past 5 1/2 years and when the first master set was released, there was a limited amount of figures you had available to build armies with. So if you played 50 times in a month, it wouldn't feel as fresh because you've used every option and army combination, as well as map build. As time went on and more expansions were released with both figures and terrain expansions, the game's variety and players options continued to grow and so did the fresh fun feeling.

I've also played Summoner Wars that was released a couple years ago. When it was released, there were two base sets and each had 2 factions each. So if you only bought 1 base set, you could only one faction against the other and that was kind of limiting. So even if you bought both base sets (around $25 each) you only had 4 factions to play against each other. Over time, there have been 4 more factions released and some reinforcements for the previously released factions were released. In July, there is a master set with 6 more factions being released. So here is an example of a game which had started out with limited variety, but has grown into having a great amount of variety. I felt that it was a great game from the beginning, but I also knew that I couldn't play it 50 times in a month with the base set without it feeling stale. So I'd play it and then put it down for awhile for other things and as the other factions were released I'd pick up Summoner Wars again and enjoy it again and continue to do so.

I don't know what is typical for a lot of other gamers so I can only speak for myself. I personally don't expect to be able to play any game 20 times a week or whatever without it getting stale. Some might work that way but to me, those would be the exception and not the rule. My own play habits are based on my time restraints due to work and family and I also like to play a variety of games and not just keep playing one game continuously. That said, other people certainly have different play habits and expectations and that's great too.