Jump to content

Welcome to Card Game DB
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

No news of the future of CoC

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply
111 replies to this topic

#101
skureppe

skureppe

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 78 posts
No 2.0. Deluxes forever please.
Does a limited asylum cycle 1.0 costs more than a new game which has cycles and deluxes coming out eventually?
Not at all. I don't know why some people can't figure it out.
Wise buying process can make CoC very affordable. and just because it has no rotation,it's obviously the best investment among all these lcgs.
So there shouldn't be a 2.0.

#102
Corwin81

Corwin81

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 82 posts

Agree 200% on no 2.0 that makes all prior investment irrelevant. Would be the best way to kill the game.

However I don't see how having quarterly Deluxes is a bad thing; monthly APs are a bigger money hole than quarterly deluxe and they're also a weaker format to properly develop a theme - something that FFG has been very good at in the Deluxes and much less so in the AP cycles (very disappointing treatment of classic Lovecraft stories like Mountains of Madness...). Old APs are out of date in terms of power curve, and it's very unlikely FFG starts new cycles. 

CoC is already the most affordable LCG or CCG, no need to further decrease expansion release frequency.



#103
LordTeacup

LordTeacup

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 442 posts

I'm just going to drone on about themed deluxe boxes once more because I would love them to happen.  Besides the HUGE variety of location based storylines, Egypt, Australia, The Orient Express (crossing Europe) there are loads of excellent backgrounds to be found in Lovecrafts tales as well.  The Mountains of Madness, The remote and insidious backwoods of central America (sorry mid-westerners), The corrupt towns such as Innsmouth and of course even a trip into dread R'lyeh.

Adding a few cards to each faction with locations, events and characters from the above could really add flavour.  With enough cards, over time events could be run that specified an era or setting (through the use of a keyword). Imagine the factions battling it out for control of Arkham or the entrance to the dreamlands found in Antartica.

 

Make it happen FFG.



#104
dboeren

dboeren

    Advanced Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 2834 posts

I think Corwin81 has a good point about not perpetuating this thread on the front page.  Shall we create a new one with a more positive title and continue discussion there?


  • GrahamM, alduc, Unnamable and 4 others like this

#105
daenarys

daenarys

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 279 posts

As a person who is just getting into Cthulhu i think it is only right and fair to speculate as to the 'retirement' of this game.

 

After the way AGOT was handled there is more than enough reasons to be a little sceptical before relenquishing hard earned cash.


  • Nightmare588 and Cumber like this

#106
MagnusArcanis

MagnusArcanis

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 334 posts

As a person who is just getting into Cthulhu i think it is only right and fair to speculate as to the 'retirement' of this game.

 

After the way AGOT was handled there is more than enough reasons to be a little sceptical before relenquishing hard earned cash.

 

First off, welcome to Cthulhu! I apologize in advance for the things I'm about to say. My goal isn't to attack you, but the mindset that rampant fear-mongering veiled as caution is a good thing. 

 

How is it right or fair to speculate?

 

Is it right to spin things to perpetuate a self-fulfilling prophecy?

 

Is it fair to anyone that to instill fear into potential consumers with non-factual evidence?

 

NO! It's NOT! (in my opinion)

 

Spreading unfounded speculation is essentially akin to making up a lie about someone or something for the purpose of taking the target down a notch. No better than spreading gossipy rumors. 

 

Side note, was AGOT 1.0 handled so poorly? They decided to end the game as is. Released the entire next cycle, and fully supported it for the entire year to give it a proper send off.  The only bad part I could see was the time frame between the end of 1.0 and the release of 2.0. The game's end and it's new beginning was too far apart for my personal tastes.

 

That being said, don't get me wrong. As a consumer you're right to exercise caution in where you place your funds. I'm not in favor of lying to give off the illusion that the game is going to last forever either, but in the short term, we actually have evidence against the game ending right now and not a single reason to believe that it will end soon. How long it will stay that way, none of us will ever know until it happens but speculation without any merit or fact is certainly not right or fair to anyone.  

 

Ok I'm done. Time to let this thread die. I agree with the sentiment that the positive notions continue in another threat. 

 

Thanks, and have a good one. 


  • HomerJ, Yuggoth and Antaiseito like this

#107
Skelton

Skelton

    Advanced Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 2082 posts
Do people want me to lock this thread down or even just remove it? There are a lot of positive comments and attitudes in this thread and if people wish to focus that elsewhere, then there may be no need for this particular thread.
  • Unnamable and FunkeXMix like this

#108
Jhaelen

Jhaelen

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1082 posts

Definitely don't remove it! Why would you? Do we need that kind of censorship here? Leave it open, I say.


  • Mulletcheese likes this

#109
MatsuPancake

MatsuPancake

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 33 posts

Perhaps just change the thread title to something less doom and gloom like "Future Speculation" or something so that it doesn't immediately turn people off and sticky it, so there is one place to talk about stuff like this, so that a new one of these threads doesn't pop up every week or something.  Clearly it's a topic that comes up a lot, but I think the damage and head-butting would be abated if it was all contained to one place.  That way new updates could be kept in the same place too. 



#110
Corwin81

Corwin81

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 82 posts

Agree with just editing the title if that's technically possible, to better reflect what is actually the content of the thread now as Banalitybob suggested. Censoring is never a good thing.



#111
dboeren

dboeren

    Advanced Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 2834 posts

No reason to delete it.  Do you have the ability to split it though?  I wouldn't mind if the more recent part was turned into a new thread with a new title and the older part left as-is.  Some forums have this mod-power, others do not.



#112
emptyvacuum

emptyvacuum

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12 posts
There's no need to delete it, because if nothing else it's good for there to be a definitive counterpoint to some of the doomsaying.