Adam said:
While there is a theoretical chance to win the game with a single investigator, it's incredibly small and definitely not easiliy repeatable. So, how did you do it - and what investigator did you use? Have you been using the base game only?
I'm equally amazed that he FINISHED his first game 
I was part of a team in Arkham Horror -- didn't make that clear. But my investigator had an integral part. And yea, we did play it wrong in one or two ways (not the #1 rulebook of all time), but nothing that made it easier.
As for the PvP comment, I can handle PvP games just fine and do prefer them myself, but I like both. I love experimenting with new decks in either format.
But many of the complaints so far about LotR have been something like, "I've already fine tuned a deck that can beat this quest consistently. When new packs come out, it only takes a few tries and then there's no challenge left." If you beat a quest with one deck, you have to try new decks or it isn't going to be fun. Some people enjoy tinkering for tinkering's sake, rather than experimenting just to make the best deck possible and then not playing anymore. For such people, being able to play against the same quest decks repeatedly offers a consistent means of testing a deck, and deck building with a friend is especially fun as you try to make decks that complement each other -- something that is not part of PvP.
Also, I don't know what you mean by no need for antagonism or conflict. You're apparently going by some other definitions of the words because that is what PvP is about. I don't mean personally antagonizing someone, but you are playing AGAINST the other player and trying to BEAT them. That is conflict, and your opponent the antagonist. Some people like an occasional break from this. Clearly you don't. But for many, that's what co-op is for. The feeling of working together and puzzling things out is refreshing, and it's especially nice for playing with players of disparate skill level, for whom a PvP game just won't be half as fun.
Avalanche said:
Another good reason is that I actually can get my wife to play Lord of the Rings with me because she can be on my team, so i'm sure it would work with Star Wars as well.
^ This. My wife doesn't usually share my interests when it comes to gaming, so I am hoping that this game, and its cooperative nature, will be an opportunity to change that.
When I saw this, my first instinct was to call my friends and say ”good news everyone!”. But my joy turned to disappointment.
This could have been one of the products I had been waiting so long for. I would have loved to play PvP/ good vs. evil, but this player(s) vs. deck doesn’t do a thing for me. I had hoped for something like Warhammer invasion but with rules for 1vs1, 1vs1vs1, 2vs2, 3vs3 ect. Because I like cooperating (team vs team) games as well as one vs one games.
That being said I am sure that the product is going to be great for the ones who like this type of thing. But I hope FFG will make another line of Star Wars LCG.
Adam said:
But many of the complaints so far about LotR have been something like, "I've already fine tuned a deck that can beat this quest consistently. When new packs come out, it only takes a few tries and then there's no challenge left." If you beat a quest with one deck, you have to try new decks or it isn't going to be fun. Some people enjoy tinkering for tinkering's sake, rather than experimenting just to make the best deck possible and then not playing anymore. For such people, being able to play against the same quest decks repeatedly offers a consistent means of testing a deck, and deck building with a friend is especially fun as you try to make decks that complement each other -- something that is not part of PvP.
Also, I don't know what you mean by no need for antagonism or conflict. You're apparently going by some other definitions of the words because that is what PvP is about. I don't mean personally antagonizing someone, but you are playing AGAINST the other player and trying to BEAT them. That is conflict, and your opponent the antagonist. Some people like an occasional break from this. Clearly you don't. But for many, that's what co-op is for. The feeling of working together and puzzling things out is refreshing, and it's especially nice for playing with players of disparate skill level, for whom a PvP game just won't be half as fun.
As far as experimenting with decks I see it as being far more fun to find the best way to beat as many different opponents as possible than to find as many ways as possible to beat a single static and unthinking opponent over and over again.
There are plenty of cooperative formats for traditionally PvP games. I not only enjoy them, but play them frequently and build decks just for them. Warhammer:Invasion, Raw Deal, Magic, and more have co-op formats. Magic even has tournaments for some co-op formats. You don't have to give up co-op for pvp, but sadly this doesn't work the other way around.
What I mean by no antagonsim or conflict is exactly that. I know plenty of players who can have just as much fun losing or playing a goofy deck that has no real shot. Just because only one of you can win doesn't automatically bring some stress or conflict in. If both players had fun playing the game, where is the conflict? It is the players fault entirely if a fun game wasn't fun because not everyone can win in the end. These kind of players would feel the exact same way if the AI beat them.
Remember I am not arguing against purely co-op games. I am arguing against a purely co-op LCG. You give up half of what makes LCG/TCG/CCG games good for solo play. Instead they could make the same game a stand alone with expansions like Cosmic Encounter or Munchkin. What would change from it being an LCG? Maybe having a slightly slower release schedule for new cards? As others have said FFG is not likely to compete against themselves with 2 Star Wars LCG's. I'd rather see this as a stand alone game, and get a fully realized Star Wars LCG.
PVP is by definition a conflict-based game. Like I said, you're reading that word some other kind of way. I don't know anyone who necessarily gets stressed from PVP, but co-op offers a break from the norm, and a customizable version ensures the game's longevity if you enjoy trying new decks even when you know an old one already works.
I've never heard of co-op versions of Warhammer or Magic or any such game, so that's news to me. Seems like a bizarre concept to me, but if it works, then I'd certainly see your point. I'd still rather a professionally designed co-op than a fan made variant, personally.
Adam said:
PVP is by definition a conflict-based game. Like I said, you're reading that word some other kind of way. I don't know anyone who necessarily gets stressed from PVP, but co-op offers a break from the norm, and a customizable version ensures the game's longevity if you enjoy trying new decks even when you know an old one already works.
I've never heard of co-op versions of Warhammer or Magic or any such game, so that's news to me. Seems like a bizarre concept to me, but if it works, then I'd certainly see your point. I'd still rather a professionally designed co-op than a fan made variant, personally.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conflict
Collision, disagreement, fight, battle, struggle, clash, controversy, quarrel, discord, antagonism, incompatibility. These are words used to define conflict. None of them to me speak of a friendly game where the players are on opposite sides.
Every definition of the word conflict has negative connotations. Once again, if two people play a game and have fun is there a conflict because one did not win? Only if the players make it as such. You, not I have the meaning of the word wrong. It implies there is strife. Strife will not be there by default.
http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=judge/resources/sfr2hg
I was talking about officially designed variants actually. Two Headed Giant for magic (2v2 games) have major tournaments and banned lists. I have also played in large (and official) 3v3 sealed deck tournaments.
PVP means conflict (unless it's something like Dominion). What would a PVP Star Wars be if not a battle or a struggle? All the good Star Wars games are battle-oriented. That is all I meant, clearly.
I've heard of two-headed giant. That's a team game not a co-op game. We apparently define half the words of the English language differently, so maybe we aren't the best two candidates for a discussion of co-ops. 
I'm not going to get involved in the "definition" of conflict, but I will say that 2-headed Giant is not a cooperative game. It is a team game as mentioned. That's like saying football is a cooperative game. A cooperative game is where all players are united against a single common foe, united for a common cause. If you're looking for examples of a pvp game in a cooperative mode, look at The Coming of Galactus in VS, or any of the raids in WOW. They are still pvp based because there is an actual person operating the raid deck instead of an AI, but from the player deck perspective they are cooperative.
You seem to have your own implied definitions for words with exceptions of your own making. These definitions also seem to change between your posts.
1st post: "It's a great option for those who want to enjoy a game for the experience, who want a break from the tension and antagonism of a PvP conflict game"
2nd post: "I don't know what you mean by no need for antagonism or conflict. You're apparently going by some other definitions of the words because that is what PvP is about. I don't mean personally antagonizing someone, but you are playing AGAINST the other player and trying to BEAT them. That is conflict, and your opponent the antagonist. Some people like an occasional break from this. Clearly you don't. But for many, that's what co-op is for. The feeling of working together and puzzling things out is refreshing, and it's especially nice for playing with players of disparate skill level, for whom a PvP game just won't be half as fun."
3rd post: "PVP is by definition a conflict-based game."
4th post: "PVP means conflict (unless it's something like Dominion). What would a PVP Star Wars be if not a battle or a struggle? All the good Star Wars games are battle-oriented."
Yet, according to your latest post Star Wars LCG would have more conflict than many PvP games. By your own example Dominion. What of a game like Ascension then? The players are at odds with only one capable of victory, but they also make no direct negative actions towards each other. The game is more of a competition for resources. Or does that game have more conflict than Star Wars because players fight npc monsters? Oh wait, you do that in Star Wars LCG too, but you do it together. So which has more conflict then?
By your definition the Star Wars LCG will have plenty of conflict. Then why are you bringing up potential conflict in a PvP version as a negative, when It doesn't seem to matter to you when the game is cooperative?
Also, by your definition of cooperative when I play NHL 12 with my friends against AI it is a cooperative game. Yet the same game using the internet to face other real players is not. There is no difference. It matters not if I and a friend play against an ai or another team of players. It is still the same game. The word cooperative doesn't mean that every human involved must be on the same side. Please explain how 20+ players working together towards a common goal in a Football game are not playing cooperatively simply because the opposition is human. Is it suddenly co-op if they play against an AI in a videogame?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_game
What of Bang? Some players are on teams, yet others are not. You may not know who is on your team, the teams are not binding, and the teams can change. Even worse, you don't always lose if you aren't on the winning team. Where does that fit in to your contrived definitions of cooperative and conflict?
I'm not interesting by co-op because for me there is no challenge after the first use...
So i don't deckbuild because I already know the result of the scenario (except a very lack of luck).
So there is no interess for a game when you know the result (easy when you have some experience of card game).
In PvP, you don't know your opponent deck, you don't know how your opponent style, so each game are different.
Today in LotR, i have 5 differents deck against me. Just with the coreset of non co-op LCG, you have more possibility of opponent deck.
Additionnaly, in a co-op, their is no bluff, no surprise (except the first time), no discovery or improvement cause of the no addaptability of your opponent.
I understand player who prefer co-op (I have friends who are happy to not lose because they are against me) but I really think, board game is better for this. It's low expensive cause no need all player buy the game (3 time to make all possibility). Board game have more than 3 scenario and are re-use easyly...
Oh you're right, there is no conflict between players in player vs. player games. My bad.
^I meant in "ALL" PVP games.
I am clearly not very good explaining myself, so sorry. All I meant in my first post in that line was that sometimes people enjoy a break from being in conflict with each other and prefer to work together as a group with everyone at the table. And I meant antagonism as in destroying/stealing things from your opponents, betrayals, playing "take that" cards, that sort of thing.
Sometimes it is nice to have a change of pace. And being able to build decks for the game means I'll be able to replay it more than some other co-op's since I can try new things each time. Maybe that makes sense now, just trying to share my opinion.
Adam said:
^I meant in "ALL" PVP games.
I am clearly not very good explaining myself, so sorry. All I meant in my first post in that line was that sometimes people enjoy a break from being in conflict with each other and prefer to work together as a group with everyone at the table. And I meant antagonism as in destroying/stealing things from your opponents, betrayals, playing "take that" cards, that sort of thing.
Sometimes it is nice to have a change of pace. And being able to build decks for the game means I'll be able to replay it more than some other co-op's since I can try new things each time. Maybe that makes sense now, just trying to share my opinion.
So you really expect the AI won't be destroying or taking any of your cards? Or is it only a conflict/antagonism/betrayal when another human is doing it?
There are plenty of stand alone games that allow deck customization. Ascension, dominion, blood bowl, thunderstone, arctic scavengers, etc. This game would be better off as a standalone game with frequent expansions. Mainly because this game gains next to nothing from being an LCG.
I'm not against this game or purely co-op games, but I am against this game being an LCG AND purely co-op. Nothing about the way this game is built requires that it be an LCG. However, large parts of how this game is built will preclude draft/sealed play, tournaments, and other things most would want/expect from an LCG/CCG/TCG.
TLDR: opportunity cost
I used the Force to insert my answer to your question in the italicized portion of the quote in your message. If you learn to use the Force as I have, you will find it. I didn't say that it's only conflict if another player is doing it but that sometimes it's nice to do away with inter-player conflict for just a moment.
May the Force be with you.
From what ppl who demoed said, its very similar to LOTR LCG. Playing LOTR i can say there is a fair amount of deck building especially when your just playing two players. Trying to find the right deck combo to beat the scenarios can keep your deck customization skills very occupied. Some scenarios are very very hard, my friend and i still havent beaten the 3rd scenario of the core set of LOTR in two player mode. Im sure by the time Star wars is released they will have learned enough from LOTR to eliminate any of the problems or bugs previous games may have had. But yeah deck customization may be slow going at first but with a force pack every month it wont be long before we have plenty of customization options.
Well, my wife and I love playing coop games with our kids, so we are very excited to play the game based on one of our favorite movies.
JerusalemJones said:
I'm going to throw my support with the group that likes the fact that this is a co-op game. All the other great reason that other have put aside, when it comes to card game I can't get my wife to play any ccg/lcg, and she hates the LotR setting, but I bet I cang et her to play this one, which means I finally have a card game the two of us will play together (and my wife is a die-hard board gamer).
I totally agree with this statement. That's exactly why I was excited for co-op. My wife is willing to play WotC Star Wars Miniatures with me, but she doesn't want to take the time to build a squad. While I love building squads, it's hard to make two, interesting, opposing squads when you know exactly what will be in each squad. You'll tend to make one squad trump the other squad's tactics. I've resorted to making 5 squads every time we play and each of us chooses one simultaneously, that way we don't know if we'll get the upper hand or not. But as you can imagine, that's pretty time-intensive for a doctoral student. With a co-op game, their is absolutely nothing wrong with me designing her deck for her and then I don't have to feel like I'm just smashing her squad all the time.
Xenu's Paradox said:
Most of the really cool/interesting characters are Dark Side.
I mean, who DOESN'T want to run a deck full of bounty hunters?
I think that would be awesome! But I'll be happy just to see each of the ESB bounty hunters make appearances on future cards. Still, a bounty hunter game would be awesome. So awesome, in fact, that I'm developing a stand-alone bounty hunter game for 2-6 players where each player controls one of the 6 bounty hunters and tries to collect bounty cards and be the first to collect x-amount of credits. Yeah. Basically bounty hunters rock.
[sorry for the double post, but I haven't figured out how to quote two things in one message yet.]
Seems like FFG made this game coop similar to LOTR is to protect AGOT. I bet a lot of AGOT players will jump to SW or LOTR if they make those games PVP.
I'm stoked on the fact that this is co-op. I love WH: I and Call of Cthulu, but I dig a more thematic, story oriented experience, and co-op is a step in the right direction.
I am very keen for this game and I love co-op games that can be played in solitair mode.. but I also think it really sucks you can not play as the empire and hunt down the rebels. This is a MUST make xpac at some point. Though keep an eye on boardgamegeek.. I would bet a custom rule set for this will spring up pretty quick it baffels me why they would not do this from the start
I was definitely disappointed when I found out I couldn't play as the Imperials... Star Wars has some really interested bad guys. I do wish they had followed more along the lines of a Game of Thrones instead of LotR.
I have no interest in a co-op LCG, so I won't be bothering to follow this. It's just not interesting to me to beat a canned deck that just sits there unable to adapt, surprise, or improve, and there's no feeling of victory for me when I do so. It's more like solving a puzzle. I'm just "done", I didn't "win".
That said, I don't think the Star Wars license would be a good choice for a competitive game either. Those tend to work better when you have a bunch of factions all fighting/competing against each other, not when the conflict is pretty much just two sides. Note that LoTR is in the same boat, it's a 2-sided game too. Having two factions in a game would suck, making up factions that don't make sense just to flesh things out isn't much better, so these licenses ended up being developed where they make sense, as co-op games. And for those who enjoy co-op games, have a great time with them!
I'll just be here waiting patiently for the next LCG to come out and hoping it's a competitive one again.