I think a lot of the current doom and gloom around the thrones meta has to do with the natural lull we are experiencing in the games OP cycle. This is even more emphasized by the delay in the new Game Kits. But, I also think FFG needs to take notice here and do something, sooner rather than later, to inject excitement into their best LCG game, by leaps and bounds.

What if FFG instituted a revolving legal pool of cards to coincide with their new OP Season Schedule. For instance, OP is now broken up into 3 Seasons. I like to think of them as The Regular Season (Jan-Mar.) , Regional Season (Apr.-Jul) and Championship Season (Aug-Nov.) SO, suppose FFG institutes only certain blocks of CPs legal in official tournaments for each of their three seasons? This would create three major meta shifting periods of time each year, and that's independent of new cards releasing (which would create more micro-meta shifts throughout the entire year).

I would make Core set and Martell/Greyjoy Expansions always legal, but let everything else fall in and out of rotation in different combinations. It would allow new players to buy only the cards they need for each season (spreading out the cost to be competetive) and it would also allow FFG to plan for very interesting tournament seasons and chapter pack releases.

Some people here on the boards and elsewhere want to see a vastly expanded restricted list, but that (and rotations for that matter) seems detrimental to the ideology of LCGs. A Living Card Game should have few Dead cards. But, with cards rotating in and out for "official" play, you get those forced meta shakeups that the old rotation system in the CCG days accomplished.

Now, for this to work I think FFG HAS to follow through in a big way on their recent announcement regarding OP. The world ranking system they are devising would be a major incentive for people to run "official" league play and tournaments, following the revolving rotation schedule.

I am like others that believe the card pool is getting out of hand, but with this system you could really tune the OP program into the driving force of the game, which I think is necessary for its long term survival.

Not sure why the second half of my OP displayed in gray text…highlight I guess?

I honestly have to say that I like this idea the best of anything that I've seen so far. If planned out properly, it would allow some very interesting environments with shake ups spaced out during the year about like we had them when the CCG was getting expansions. Likely, they would be shakeups of a similar size as well. Plus, cards would never be obsoleted by being straight up rotated out, they'd just be out of season for a time, which I don't think invalidates the concept of the LCG system the way a full blown rotation would.

IF there were to be a rotation or set constriction, I like this idea the best. However, I think that due to the incoherence of cycle themes that there should also be a caveat that despite which cycles are legal at any given time, a player may choose 2-3 out-of-cycle cards as exclusions, which will allow them, for example, to get that winter/summer card they need that's in a random cycle/box, or the stray shadows card from outside of the KL cycle.

Thanks for the support guys, I thought maybe I was delusional…but, maybe there's something to the idea. Kennon, you should bring it up on the show.

I think I agree with you Danigral, so what if instead of a blanket illegalization of a block during a season, certain blocks went restricted during the season, so you could only pull a single card from those blocks during that season? It would allow you to pull that one card you need to cinch your deck up tight, but would still leave the block on the shelf for the most part that season.

I think the idea of "restrict cycle " or "allow players to pick cycles" was slightly talked about in the old thread. The problematic parts are that the countermeasures of some of the currently very strong deck types are really limited and their power levels would increase even more.

Take for example Seasons. Both Summer and Winter are really strong decktypes with fairly few available counters - Carrion Bird, Maesters/Learned and very few hand control cards that can hit the Raven before it is played. Now, in the case of Seasons and a cardpool limited by restricting certain cycles, they would only rise in power, since players would be forced to pick a whole cycle to counter a certain decktype, instead of just a few cards.

It also doesn't go well for balance since some cycles have been designed with a clear theme (seasons, maesters, shadows, NW/WL). While other cycles have been made to be supportive to the card pool with mixed set of cards and no clear theme (clash, champions, beyond). Cycles with clear themes that can build decks out of themselves are the stronger ones of the group so I would imagine that if it came to it, they would still be chosen most of the time in limited pools.

Mostly the problems with counters not being available generally tend to arise from cards with specific immunities (f. ex. House of Dreams, Seasons) or cardtypes that don't have a lot of easily available control (f. ex. locations and attachments [outside of the Maester Cycle]).

So really what this all ends up to, is that even when moving to some kind of more limited changing cardpools (which is a pretty interesting idea), we would need to get some more restrictions and erratas to keep the playing field from degenerating and power-themes from dominating. There is also the danger of creating too complex deckbuilding restriction rules by some cards being allowed to be picked from certain cycles.

While I agree with you with single-cards with heavy immunities (eg. House of Dreams), the fact that Summer and Winter become more powerful in metas with fewer opposing seasons isn't necessarily an issue if the majority of cards to fuel a season are in the same cycle. Either the seasons cycle is legal for this "part" of the season, or it isn't. If it is legal, there'll be a lot of opposition using it, and the counters are readily available in the same cycle. If it isn't, and we assume that means that all out-of-cycle cards are "restricted" (as proposed earlier), you could still run Black Ravens at the exclusion of Time for Ravens and Kings of Summer, so you'd be somewhat limited in your options.

The simplest (although not necesarily best) version of this would be to have a entire CPs rotate on and off the Restricted List throughout the year, to match the OP "seasons" 1-3. If necessary, you can place a few cards on an "unrestricted list", which should be no harder to keep in mind than the current "restricted list" is. This changes your deck building a little, but doesn't necessarily complicated it since you have a smaller pool of cards to work with.

I really like this idea, but there are many considerations;

Does reducing the buy-in to 1*Core+6*Deluxes+3Cycles significantly lower the (financial and knowledge) barrier of entry to entice new players?
Will buying CPs that are only "legal" about 1/3rd of the time discourage people?
Will this effectively shake-up the meta, or will we just get more deck homogeneity from a smaller card pool?

The arguement that having an environment where certain CP's are restricted makes for super powerful, auto-build decks, is short sighted.

Everyone seems to like to look at what is in print now and base their opinion off of that.. the "if they did this right now ,it would be imbalanced" arguement.

They forget that as new sets come out they can be tailored to balance this new rotationg restriction of CPs.

In other words, new cards can be made to deal with those Power Cards and bring them back into balance with whatever environment you are setting up.

A restricting/limiting/rotation of sets can work, and there are a lot of good reasons to do it.

But all the good reasons in the world aren't going to convince FFG to do it, because they are too stuborn to change the matrix.

We are stuck with what we have and the situation is only going to get worse.

Sorry to rain on your parade.

Shikaku, I think that's a little unfair given that this company has been reasonably "agile" in the past - radically changing distribution models (to the LCG, to the deluxe expansions for CoC), reshaping their OP support, etc.

-Istaril said:

You mean jettisoning it for years?

Gotta give FFG the benefit of the doubt here guys. They have to know the player base is freaking a bit. I'm sure there is a plan in place to handle many of our concerns. Just gotta give em time and not make threats ("im leaving if no rotation!"). Thrones is by far their most popular game**, they aren't going to let flounder into nothing out of stubborness. They will carefully examine the situation and take whichever action they feel will most benefit everyone involved while still maintaining their vision for the game.

**completely made up statistic/assumption

Thanks Dennis, for bringing the tone back to the OP I made. I also think FFG will take steps to strengthen the community, in fact, I think they are doing it right now with the new OP program. I personally would have liked to see a bigger overhaul announcement from Worlds, but I am excited for the new kits. Even more, I am excited for the ranking system. However it plays out, I think it will inject real interest in running local, regularly scheduled tournaments. And THAT is how you build a thriving meta. You cant just have a great game…you need the competetive pieces in place. A good ranking system would create upsets, underdogs, grudge matches, meta mvps and other distinctions that are good for competition. Couple in coveted prize support, and you have yourself a winning combination.

Set restriction/rotation would just be a part of it, but I think it's a part FFG is looking at. All of the above's impact will be lessened if the card pool is perceived to be static.

Kennon said:

Well, I meant "Stepping it up for this year", but jettisoning it for years shows a willingless to change too!

Dennis I think you're being a bit naïve. This company has a track record of remaining silent when it comes to the concerns of its players; it is not priority for them to have an open line of communication with their players and it never has been.

I guarantee the concerns we have about the state of the game are not being discussed in their meetings.

FFG has never done well marketing this game, instead they rely on the intellectual property itself to attract players.

And they have not done anything to give players or reason to stay other than new content.

But even that comes with diminishing returns as the card pool reaches critical mass.

Instead of solving that problem with the plan you think they have, they develop and release new games.

Now I never said people should quit if there's no rotation, though if they decided to do that more power to them.

What I am saying is it is a waste of time coming up with ways they could rotate or restrict or limit the pool; at least until they start participating more in communicating with the player base their intentions.

Why should we give them the benefit of the doubt? Why should we continue to enable them by buying product?

I understand, they just want to make money. To do that though they need players. But they still haven't learned, after 10 years, by listening to the players, and making them feel like they have a stake in the game, they will grow their player base and ultimately make more money.

So no, I don't expect anything to change anytime soon.

Shikaku, how about adding something constructive to the thread. Be part of a solution.

Has any playgroup experimented with a rotation to see if it does help at all ?

Yes, people have tried to limit the cardpool. No, it hasn't worked; because the cardpool is not balanced in any way that makes it even remotely possible to restrict the current card pool effeciently without having cards dominating the environment.

As I mentioned before, until they start releasing product that actually balances it in the spectrum of a limited or restricted carpool then nothings going to change.

They have shown by this whole next CP cycle that that's not in their immediate short-term goals and they have not indicated it is even in their plans. That's why I say they need better communication and that it's a waste of time to even try.

It's not about being positive or negative, this is the reality of the situation.

Toqtamish said:

As Dan noted in another thread, the NYC meta is doing league play with restrictive deckbuilding rules: basically, any deck can use the core set, one deluxe box, 2 CP cycles, and the current partial CP cycle. All agendas, regardless of source, are legal.

I don't think it has done much. The same strong builds are still strong, if less efficient. At the same time, the restrictions perhaps have made other builds that are not T1 competitive within he league. For example, I've been doing well with a dragon build that could never compete in a tourney in the current environment.

Shikaku said:

How do you guarantee that? Are you present? Oh that's right, you just made that up, fun. I can make things up too! The sky is brown!

Shikaku said:

That is your opinion, but i tend to agree with it. Word of mouth (which is how I found out about it), can be very effective though if the game is strong enough.

Shikaku said:

What should they do? Hire hookers to blow the players during regionals finals?

Shikaku said:

What exactly is the correlation btw taking an action and communicating that action? Just because they don't call you at home and leave you a voicemail doesnt mean that they arent working on it. If I don't post on the boards about what I brought for lunch today, that doesn't mean that I won't be enjoying a delicious bowl of easyMac in about 2 hours.

Shikaku said:

A) Because that is your only option other than quitting (or coming here to whine apparently). B) Because their product is worth it.

dcdennis said:

This is quickly turning into a flame-war, lets try to stay away from that (the AGoT community here is pretty good about doing so). I do agree with others that you're just spouting negativity Shikaku, but you're a bit more hostile in your responses than is necessary dennis.

The one thing Shikaku says that I kind of have to agree with is that FFG does a poor job of communicating with the players. Nate and Damon obviously have a lot to do and can't spend all of their time responding to our feedback and concerns, but we get virtually no word from them whatsoever. Based on some of the rule changes (collusion, seperating restricted lists, reducing the power of Maesters, etc) it seems like they do take our feedback into consideration, but this happens maybe once a year. A simple letter to the community from the designers once or twice a year would be appreciated; I'm not saying they owe it to us, but why not do it, especially when we have what we feel are legitimate concerns about something like, oh I don't know… the 3-month gap in product perhaps? I'd happily take one less CP news announcement every 6 months in favor of one article with feedback from the designers; what do I care about "A Journey's End" when I'm sitting around for 3 months waiting for the journey to begin?

dcdennis said:

We all know the solution is that at each regional they give away a playmate. pffff….

Also it should be noted that though what NY is doing is interesting it does not sound at all the same as FFG taking the time to say for this regional season cycle x + cycle r + core will be available,,,nations will be cycle y + core + cyle z and cyle q etc…. I personally think it would be very cool if something like this happened. It would mean you would never see the same deck win a lot of the regionals and nationals since the cards available would have changed. People would need to think for them self (deck build) before worlds and not just net deck…

Skowza said:

I wouldn't say this is anywhere close to being a flame-war. As for your opinion that I am spouting negativity, by all means think what you like. I see my opinions as stating the obvious, regardless whether it ruffles someone's feathers.

You may not agree with everything I stated, but you admitted you agreed with at least part of it; it's not like I am way off in left field here.

I am just not going to delude myself into hoping for the best when I have seen the track record for myself. I think that's being honest about the situation. It's what I believe because I have not been given an adequate reason to think otherwise.

That being said, no Dennis, they do not need to call me at home with personal updates.. your hyperbole is a bit much don't you think.. but as skowza pointed out, anything is better than what we currently get.. which is nothing.

You also wanted to know what they should do to keep players around other than put out product for us to buy. Looking at AEG for examples would be a good start (since I consider them to be relatively equal in size to FFG when it comes to player/product footprint.. in my gut, I think FFG is bigger actually, but haven't spent the time crunching any numbers or seriously researching it).

The level of player to company involvement is far superior with AEG. Full color printed newsletters come out quarterly with promo cards are available; consistent availablity of OP Kits with usable promo cards - not alternate art for ones they already have; a greater level of opportunity for players to "own" a piece of the game through card namings and creations; information about the state of game and product posted frequently on their website; making it a point to spend an entire year focused on the quality of the products they were selling, looking at the material they are buying and the art they are using on the packaging so that it can be used by the player if they wish; thanking them for being loyal customers by creating a giving away a free expansion (180 cards) for their 15th anniversary and a special commemorative, usable, card for their 16th year which came with 10 different alternate arts and various ways players could obtain them.

And that's before you even get to the fiction their staff of writers create on a weekly basis.. now this last thing is something that FFG simply cannot do, but the rest of that is not outside the realm of possible.

We as players should expect some outside of the box thinking about what they can do, and we have never seen that since AGOT was started.. special house cards, counters, the loss of promos when they switched over to an LCG, the loss of prize support in the form of boosters and draft packs when they switched over to the LCG model.

In the early days, long before you played AGOT.. back when we still bought boosters.. we didn't really see the level of support for the competitive players (or really any player base) that some of us wanted. We made it an issue, brought it up on the boards; and nothing changed.

I think it is disengenuous to lead people on into thinking that they are hard at work solving the issues we've brought up without actually hearing their intentions on doing so first.

I'm not going to polish their nob and tell them how great their game is and how wonderful of a job they are doing when I disagree with the latter.

They know their game is great. We know their game is great. No need to remind them.

They know we want our issues addressed (or so you believe). We assume they know we want our issues addressed. And for years nothing is done to address them. Lets take off the rose colored glasses and see the situation for what it is.

Nothing negative about that. It is, what it is.

But even if you think it is negative for me to point out flaws in how the company consistantly handles situations, I could care less.. I paid my money to buy their product just like you did. I have just as much right as you do to voice my opinion whether someone thinks it is whining or not.

If you feel like you paid good money and are happy with the way things are, by all means, continue to be a cheerleader. I won't stop you, or even say you should stop. I'll just disagree with you.

I agree with shikaku on most points. I will say i think the game (Op) direction is getting good. Ai cards are neat, and from what i hear worlds gave out good stuff, even to top 8. Flashback 2 years ago i got a pin fot top 4. Nothing for top 8 last year, i dunno. I think stealing aegs dex box idea would be awesome among other things; but again worlds was much better supported than gencon. This season i hope the regional kits are good, and having some cheap op kits is great. I hope that it means worlds and by extension gencon are even better. And while i dont play for prizes, it makes it fun and gives incentive to grow their game and travel. Lets not forget that every year agot seems to face tougher challenges with new lcgs and other games/ interests.

Slight derail, but CCGtrader, check your PMs, please.

I think most of the discussion on this thread is splitting hairs. I think the point that most/all of us would agree with is that whether or not FFG has an obligation (this being a point of disagreement), there is a missed business opportunity to engage this community.

Some of the posters are suggesting that maybe the business opportunity that exists is insignificant, and thus FFG is consciously opting not to engage the community more thoroughly via communications, including regular posts from designers, etc. Though I have no data to support my own convictions, I suspect that FFG is compromising its bottom line just to minimize a bit of risk. (There's always risk when you ask an employee to communicate with customers online on the company's behalf.)

I suspect, and I'm fairly confident that recent research supports this, that investments into communications and customer engagement have a significantly higher return on investment (ROI) than straightforward marketing. This is not to say that marketing is passe, but rather than when complimentedy by effective communications strategy, marketing's ROI is much higher than it otherwise would be. Consider, FFG's marketing team has put out at least one big push for each chapter pack in the current cycle, none of which has been released. Rather than generating excitement for the products, however, with the delay of product and lack of direct communications from the company these marketing pushes have been somewhat counterproductive, as they repeatedly remind us of FFG's poor performance and failure to update this community of what's going on.

Looking at it from the other side, an informed and engaged community can build brand loyalty, market share, and profits. Already, several AGoT players have posted on these forums that they follow communications from other game companies (Wizards of the Coast, etc.). Though I don't play Magic The Gathering, I was intrigued by endorsements that appeared on these forums. Consequently, I visited the linked websites, then clicked on their product pages and read about their approach to game design. As any retailer knows, one of the biggest challenges of selling product is simply getting it in front of the eyes of potential customers. Through good communications, Wizards of the Cost was able to create avid followers, who then recommended their products and provided easy access for a potential customer like me to get more information. All this was done NOT via marketing emails or banner ads, but through virtual word of mouth as customers became advocates for the gaming company.

FFG already has a very loyal player base, at least when it comes to the A Game of Thrones LCG. Poor communication will probably not do much to disrupt this, but poor communication does significantly hamper the community's ability to grow. If all of us who are a part of this community were better empowered - not through support for organized play or league kits, but really given the tools we need to help recruit new players and sufficient communications that keeps them engaged - we could grow this community and increase profits for FFG. It would be win-win.

The failure to seize this opportunity is not a surprise. FFG's communications strategy has been poor for years, if it has one at all (which I suspect it does not). And to some extent, this is understandable, but not forgivable. FFG originated as a boardgame company, and the profit margins on collectible card games are no doubt extremely slim. That said, FFG is no longer solely a board game company, and it continues to miss easy opportunites to engage this community; at times, FFG's efforts are counterproductive. For example, the switch to this forum software several years ago happened suddenly and much to the dismay of the community. The company also has failed to address original concerns related to poor personal messaging features, confusing editing capabilities, and sluggish load times. These are just minor issues, but they collectively call into question FFG's investment in this game and commitment to its players. It might be that none of these forum software issues, delays in product, etc. can be changed, but if that's the case, one would expect that FFG would at a minimum communicate with its customers and fans about their concerns.

Can someone just email to French or Stone (or the person responsible for OP) and ask them about their plans about OP? They answer the email, we have an answer. If they don't, it was worth a try.=)