Glaurung said:

I hope to see level 3's pop up frequently still. I'm a casual player anyway and I want to have the occassional easy one too. Not to mention they're quite suitable for solo play.

Untergeher said:

Ban cards... in a cooperative non tournament-based LCG. I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry. >_>;

Vyron said:

Indeed. Seriously do you think most people at the store play the game beyond casually? We bring it out once in a while, give it a few goes. There has to be balance. Very easy, easy, normal, hard and very hard ones in equal measure. But a lot of people on this forum are diehard players and hence only look through the glasses of hardcore competitive play. That is a stark contrast with a lot of people who like me picked it up for it's flavor, it's story-driven edge and the fact it avoided the supercompetitive cutthroat edge a lot of cardgames have.

Darthvegeta800 said:

Actually you right. Is quite funny!!!!

Darthvegeta800 said:

Here! Here! "Good speach. Nice and short"

FFG already has a rule/mechanic in place for making quests more difficult. Play with one fewer Hero.

Glaurung said:

I disagree. These cards are strong but they aren't broken in any way shape or form.

I appreciate that you want a harder game but don't try and spoil it for the rest of us please. If you don't like them, don't play them yourself.

The_Big_Show said:

First i always say for my self and noy for any one in this forum

. Second why you think i dont like those cards???? I like them. But when we will have a first tournament almost 90% of the deck list will be same.

Quite boring a????

jhaelen said:

i share his basic oppinion. i just have a different approach to solving it: i started modding the cards. many of them.

for example, all titles, signals, skills are conditions, unexpected courage is unique, costs 3 and no character can have more than 1 condition attached (suddenly the choice to play one of these condition cards involves some planning and decisions). gimli gets +1 attack for every 2 damage. gandalf is an event. many more... not all cards need to be totally balanced, but with some streamlining of their power, the game became more interesting to us. the choice, which cards to use or remove became much harder. i also boosted some of the too weak cards, but mostly i reduced the power of the overpowered player cards to increase the challenge.

i also modded the encounter deck. i detest the banks of anduin effect for example, so i replaced it with a serious location. i always hated that East Bight patrol is a tree card, when the East Bight is Wilderlands, so i shuffled some cards around (more spiders in spider deck, more orcs in orc deck etc). i also modded some stats. again, in general i increased the challenge and we like it better that way.

this game has such a great potential. it is good the way it is published, but it could be so much more. i'm trying to get my version there.

letsdance said:

I done it also before.

And i glad someone do it and start to see how much better and interesting game when the cards is more balanced. Yes and some people right you can do some house rules ans so on. But actually is not My JOB!!!! That job OF FFG!!!! Game is brilliant, just need to make some erratas, stop release some broken (B brnd for example) make quest more interesting, make effect on the encounter cards react on players growing power with every round and that ALL!!! So FFG please do your JOB!!!!

Glaurung said:

And 72,3% of all statistics are made up on the spot. You've stated your position time and again. I've got a suggestion (something I think you've already been told): Don't make your expert decks - make theme decks or decks that are weaker on purpose. If the game can't challenge you (a statement I find very hard to believe), then challenge yourself.

As for tournement play: Let's burn that bridge, when we reach it.

Kløve said:

I think that's pretty much the point on my side of this debate - if the game isn't providing you enough challenge, challenge yourself. Force yourself not to just beat a quest, but beat it with the best possible score you can since that's what a tournament will likely focus on anyway. Or do any of the many variations I or others have listed here.

There is a big difference in the way casual and hardcore players enjoy this game. My rule of thumb to differentiate the two is whether you have 3 core sets or not. I play with only one core set and I find the game challenge to be just what I am looking for. While it's true that sometimes I get to a state of relative security, I more often than not find myself one encounter card away from ruin. I also believe that I don't find Berevor overpowered because I don't have 3 copies of UC to stack in my deck.

Amen to that. And let me just make another eaqually valid statistic. It's only 3% that has problems with the game. The remaining 97% are overly satisfied! So I have a good suggestion to the 3% that is almost ruining it for the majority. Make your own rules or find another game. Very simple solution. And YES. It is YOUR job NOT FFGs to make rules for the few. FFG should only make rules for the majority. If I don't like the way a game is supposed to play I don't rant on and on and on and on about what I think it should/could be or shouldn't. I accept the conditions or find another game.

And by the way, I have beaten all the quests now, solo, 2 player, 3 and 4. Some are easy some are difficult. Still couldn't care less what difficulty or challenges there are. Still wanna have level 1, 2 and 3 quests. As long as the story is good no such things as errata, banned cards or change of rules should be made. Unless the majority think so instead of the few. Seriously! Stop trying to ruin the game!!!

mr.thomasschmidt said:

I dont want to ruin something. This is only my point of view on the game.And i like this game. Otherwise i already long time leave this forum and play another game.Im buy 4 core set already and 2 copies of each ad pack. + great some kind of community in my city and as a a active player and one who is pushing other want to know where game is going. Yes maybe im must to be more casual in this game and everything will be ok. But is my nature if i do something i put 100%

Anyway my point of view will not change and with time i will have more and more people who will agree with me more. I done.

And it's good to do something 100% as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. And it will if FFG listens to you too much. Then there will only be you and you little group left to play the game because everybody else don't like how the game will have evolved and find another one. 4 core sets and 2 of each AP. That's part of your problem right there. If the games too easy for you it's your own fault. Not the rules or FFG. And the only one that can and should change that is you. The majority shouldn't suffer just because a few players hasn't caught the true spirit of the game. I'm done too for now. But every time you come with those spirited outbursts I'll be there to make the opposite statements to keep the balance. It's not a personal attack cause I respect that you have your opinion, just not the way you always make it seem like you speak for the majority. Like you would comment on me if I alway stated " Hey they should really ban Boromir because he's to powerful!!!! He totally ruins the game for everyone!!!!! Come on FFG don't make cards like that!!!!! People don't want heroes like that cause they make the quests too easy!!!! End would it be too much to ask for some 1 level quests???? Cause people are tired of the difficult level 5!!!!!!" and so on. That would be MY opinion if that was how I felt, which it isn't, and I shouldn't make it sound like I speak for everyone. But hey, how about making a thread about how to improve game experience for hardcore players?

mr.thomasschmidt said:

mr.thomasschmidt said:

quoted for truth

All the little things being criticized right now really seems like nitpicking to me. I totally understand that people want this game to go a certain direction, but this direction might not be the most desirable for the rest of the community. So far everything's very much to my liking. And honestly: All this talk about future tournaments... First: Why not wait until we have something official? And second: I really can't relate to all the complaining and worrying. Nothing's broken in my opinion...

The game would be better and more fun, for both the tournament player and the casual gamer, if Northern Tracker did not exist. We can get into specifics if you wish (they have been covered elsewhere), but the general stance that many people in the thread are tacking seems to be that erratas, restrictions or bans always bad. That simply isn't true. Those changes can improve games under the right circumstances.

edit: just to be clear, I wouldn't errata a card or ban it in this case. I think the best solution would be to issue a restricted list for tournament play (even if their aren't tournaments). That way, casual players could ignore the list, just like they can ignore the 50 card minimum, if they wish. I would place Northern Tracker, Gandalf, Steward of Gondor and Unexpected Courage on the list. Given the way that restricted lists have been used in other FFG LCGs, I woul be suprised if we didn't eventually see one for this one.

That is absolutely true. BUT I don't think a few people thinking the game is too easy and therefor wanna change/ban/edit a few cards is the right circumstances. that would ruin it for more than it would suit, if you follow what I mean.

I don't really have any issues with the game or people wanting it more challenging. BUT it should be on the right premises. Like if my opinion got heard a lot finding the game WAAAAAY too easy end then FFG listens to that. Then the game would suddenly be only quest level 1, 2 and 3. This would maybe make me happy but it would ruin it for far more people. Follow? The right time for making mostly harder quests and ban cards is when the majority is longing for it. Like in when the forum swams with discussions about why the game is too easy and only a few want it to stay that way. THEN you can go on and do something about it. The FFG should always follow the majority not the few who thinks they are the majority. Am I making sense?

I would encourage you to spend some time talking to professional game designers. Making design decisions based on popular consensus is a recipe for disaster.

I just meant that it's smart to give people what they want. People being the majority. It will be a poor strategy not listening to ones customers not meaning giving them EVERYTHING they want.

the game wouldn't be any worse for "casual gamers" if they had provided a better balancing. i don't understand this panic at all.

anyways, i started modding cards because i'm sure it's not possible that future APs will fix the balancing issues. northern trackers, burning brand... too many things already out there, that absolutely kill many possible great ideas. they already started using "cannot be affected by player cards" and "cannot be prevented" as work-arounds. so don't be afraid, there won't be anything else.

as a side note... usually the majority doesn't really know what it wants. they think they know something, of course. but when they get it, they aren't content anyways. just look at politics

Bohemond said:

I have to agree with this guy... a list of restricted cards for tournament play would be a great idea, and it sounds like an ideal solution that should satisfy the hungriest of both worlds. Out of the four cards he mentions, three of those immediately pop into my head when I think of "overpowered" cards , so I think there is some value in evaluating the strength of a card relative to the rest of the player cards available.

That being said, when game difficulty is being discussed, from personal experience I feel like the difficulty of each play session varies greatly based on a number of different factors outside of the scenario itself. As people have pointed out already, the game experience is going to be different for someone playing a monosphere Lore deck from the core set on Escape from DG, for example, than it is for someone playing with two other friends in carefully constructed decks with a lot of synergy tailored specific to the quest. I do sympathize with the sentiment that in general the game becomes too easy in many of these situations, and I do feel like there should be more scenarios that are challenging for the hardcore players who have multiple core sets and all the APs. While people can challenge themselves by modding cards or making their own encounter decks or playing thematic decks as others have suggested, I still think it is the responsibility of FFG to find a ways to standardize an increase in the difficulty of completing these scenarios (like they've done with their nightmare mode), particularly in games with 2 or more players.

This game is not MtG. It is a cooperative game or solo game. As a result, you can choose to limit the number of cards that you feel are a problem. With a 50 card deck each, the cards that you are worried about may not even appear once!! Please stop complaining. If you disagree with a card, don't play it or limit it.

Big Borg said:

How would issuing a restricted list for tournament play have any impact on how you interact with the game?

Bohemond said:

And how would tournament play work exactly? There have been threads that have talked about how the scoring matrix doesn't seem to make much practical sense.