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

Censorship issues


  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#1
Koldro

Koldro

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 26 posts
So a member of the BCL (as an admin) just closed a discussion about the role and influence of the BCL on our game.
I think it's an awkward conflict of interest.
 
Is that possible to get more details about it? Are we allowed to comment the BCL or the state of the game or is it forbidden? (I'm not talking about insults of course, but the thread was civil so far.)
If we can't... then we are all in a very awkward situation.

  • Eu8L1ch likes this

#2
MightyToenail

MightyToenail

    Advanced Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 1164 posts
Hold on, I'll get the popKhorne.
  • Tobogan, Tytou, SlaaneshDevotee and 2 others like this

#3
Eu8L1ch

Eu8L1ch

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 537 posts

The discussion was civil, in my opinion closing the thread was not warrented by the the situation (regardless of allegiances, I am assuming Warfather was in good faith and only acted for what he believed to be in the interest of the forum).


  • MightyToenail likes this

#4
Koldro

Koldro

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 26 posts

The discussion was civil, in my opinion closing the thread was not warrented by the the situation (regardless of allegiances, I am assuming Warfather was in good faith and only acted for what he believed to be in the interest of the forum).

 

If my post wasn't clear enough. I 100% agree with you. I assume Warfather was in good faith too. The issue I'm raising ins ONLY on the conflict of interest and possible lock of a general topic.


  • MightyToenail likes this

#5
fleepa0

fleepa0

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 26 posts

This is a cyclical thread, always started by suspiciously new accounts that add nothing to the comunity discussion.

 

It was purely bashing on one of the design groups while praising the other for questionable reasons. If the thread was titled "A few words to Apoka and BCL design teams" while acknowledging both teams pros and cons and how it affected his decision i would give it more credit, but it was a thread started to attack a particular group of people that are not really responsible for his decision.

 

IMO it was fair to close it, we can have a good argument about this topic, but that is not the starting point needed for a civil discussion. 


  • Ultramarine, dnapolitano, MightyToenail and 1 other like this

#6
Eu8L1ch

Eu8L1ch

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 537 posts

MarixT, if you see this please check your inbox. :)



#7
WarFather

WarFather

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 686 posts

I've actually have stepped down from the BCL stuff for some time now. Other priorities in my life are taking more of my time and I can't continue to help make fan made content. I will also have nothing to do with any fan run worlds. I haven't played a game in a long time and don't figure on doing so any time soon. I wish Apoka and BCL the best and hope everyone can continue to have fun with the game in whatever way they see fit. I do get some breaks at work so I will be able to watch the forums still. I closed the other thread, because threads like that do nothing for the community expect people getting out of hand and writing things they shouldn't. 


  • Stefan2581, Ultramarine, phillosmaster and 1 other like this

#8
Koldro

Koldro

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 26 posts

This is a cyclical thread, always started by suspiciously new accounts that add nothing to the comunity discussion.

 

It was purely bashing on one of the design groups while praising the other for questionable reasons. If the thread was titled "A few words to Apoka and BCL design teams" while acknowledging both teams pros and cons and how it affected his decision i would give it more credit, but it was a thread started to attack a particular group of people that are not really responsible for his decision.

 

IMO it was fair to close it, we can have a good argument about this topic, but that is not the starting point needed for a civil discussion. 

 

Well.
 
If you have a criticism to say to A, you don't need to criticize B to Z in order to be fair.
 
If MatriX's opinion is that Apoka's work is better than BCL's work and that BCL should have collaborate for the sake of the game (means: undivided), I share this opinion too. But it's not an attack, it's just an opinion on the situation. I don't feel like FerrusManus, Drazzt, Killazit, Eu8L or I are attacking anyone. It's just comparison and opinion. (as long as it remains polite of course)

  • Eu8L1ch likes this

#9
dnapolitano

dnapolitano

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 509 posts

Interesting topic. I like the BCL designed cards. I do not like the Apoka designed cards. I respect anybody's decision to want to only play Vanilla cards.



#10
MightyToenail

MightyToenail

    Advanced Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 1164 posts
I like the Apoka cards. I don't like the Black Crusade ones. But if someone wanted to play BC cards against me in Octgn, I don't see a problem. If someone asks me to not use Apoka, I will comply as well. Why can't people just cooperate a little bit more?
  • steinerp, SlaaneshDevotee, Kaloo and 1 other like this

#11
Drazzt999

Drazzt999

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts
That's the point.
We (the players) have to cooperate and adapt to two formats.
We need to ask each time we play, with the risk to meet someone who is playing a different format. And a lot of players want to play "one game", not "two games in one" with a messed-up meta and mixed formats.
 
The example of the European Championship or Renewed Faith are perfect examples. If you played with the Apoka cards (EC) or BCL cards (RF), then you are not ready for one of those tournament, because you don't know the cards and your decks aren't valid, etc. It means you are playing a game and half of the events aren't for you. It means that when you read a strategy deck post about a warlord there is 50% chance you don't know the cards they are talking about, or that even if you know them, you can't play them in your gaming area because they play the other format.
In short: divided format, divided community. ^^ That is what feared (with reason) a lot of players back in the days, when all this started. And it proved right. The thing is, it affects more the pro-players who need a solid meta than the casual players who are playing only with the same players anyway and can ignore the meta. That's what happened to my store, or to MartiX, OP driven players quit the game because it wasn't able to stabilize and guarantee a stable format.


#12
dnapolitano

dnapolitano

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 509 posts

Drazzt999, that has not been my experience at all with OP driven players.  What store did you play out of and who were the OP players in that store?  Which online leagues did they partake in prior to game being cancelled?

 

In my experience, most competitive players left Conquest as soon as the game was cancelled if not shortly after.  To a competitive player, a dead game no longer is a competitive game.  Some stayed and then left later for other reasons, either family commitments, life commitments, loss of in-person opponents and not liking OCTGN interface, or frankly being tired of the inane drama that crops up periodically in Facebook and these barely used forums. I know one person that actually dropped out of Conquest because they only want Vanilla cards and are upset at the fan made content.  You may know different OP players so this is why I ask who it is, because the players I spoke with daily played in the online BCL tourneys over the last few years and were involved in Worlds.

 

This is a game many of us just want to play and experience in a positive note.  Many people that have left the game comment on how ridiculous the forums have gotten and I am with them.

 

So I am interested in the story of your local shop and the players there.  Who they were and how something so small as two options for formats staged on the internet forums/facebook has influenced their decisions.  What were you and them doing before that you cannot do now?

 

I am thankful for having BCL as an option.  The premise that two options leads to people leaving just doesn't make sense to me. A situation where Apoka is the only design team where in order to play online Conquest I must play their cards is distasteful to me. That is to say, I play in online tournaments, I have been involved in the community for a long time, and a one format system would lose me not keep me. There are plenty of people that feel the same about both formats and this is why I don't understand how people could even look at a vanilla-only tournament as exclusive to them. It is by far the fairest and most inclusive format.


  • steinerp, Caldera, fleepa0 and 4 others like this

#13
Eu8L1ch

Eu8L1ch

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 537 posts

vanilla-only [.....] It is by far the fairest and most inclusive format.

 

We already know each other's positions, so I don't think repeating those here would help the discussion. The above statement caught my eye though.

What is that makes you think "vanilla-only" is the "most inclusive" format?

Allow me to state my case why, in fact, it is not.

1) Vanilla-only is not offering anything new to players who are already familiar with the game. In particular, for very experienced players vanilla is probably very boring. The concept behind an LCG is that it is, you know, it's living. So it is not planned to work as a game with no new releases, which brings us to...

2) When it met its official end, the Conquest meta was not balanced and varied. Please note that I'm not talking about all the decks that could've possibly been built (from Landa/Throne upwards), I'm considering only those that ranged from decent to very competitive. While there is seldom an agreement on what's strongest in a given card game (and Conquest made no exception, at least judging from this forum) there is a strong sense for what the competitive options are. As a friend of mine summed it up, most decks in the post-Deathworld meta could be labeled as "Elites+Reducers+Movement abilities". There are a few exceptions to this (Kith, Worr), but if you are going to build a deck from scratch either it's an Elite deck or you're at a serious disadvantage from the get-go. Dan, I know you in particular disagree with this statement, but my experience - and that of the vast majority of the players I know - overwhelmingly supports this claim. I am willing to discuss it in another thread, if there's enough interest for it.

2-bis) One can argue the above meta is not even fun. The swinginess of the game has increased, and the importance of skill has decreased. This has been discussed before, even on this forum, with many posters agreeing on this point.

Thus Vanilla is not "the perfect essence of Conquest enshrined". If Conquest had had five or six cycles, the last designed with the impending end in mind, then it could have been the case for Vanilla to be a very solid option. As it stands, it's not.

Personally, I'd rather not play than seeing the same old patterns reappear in my games over and over again.

I still enjoyed Vanilla a tiny bit a few months ago, but now I'm done with it. It's new cards or bust for me, and from what I've witnessed it's a largely shared feeling

You can't expect a signifcant portion of the playerbase - please note it might even be the majority - to refrain from playing with new cards just because another group doesn't want any.

You want to play vanilla-only? Fine, but it's incorrect to point it out as a neutral choice because, in fact, it isn't.


  • Caldera, FerrusManus, MightyToenail and 1 other like this

#14
dnapolitano

dnapolitano

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 509 posts
To be clear, I prefer playing BCL over vanilla.

#15
Intolerance

Intolerance

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts

1) for very experienced players vanilla is probably very boring.

2) The concept behind an LCG is that it is, you know, it's living. So it is not planned to work as a game with no new releases, which brings us to...

3) I'm considering only those that ranged from decent to very competitive. While there is seldom an agreement on what's strongest in a given card game (and Conquest made no exception, at least judging from this forum) there is a strong sense for what the competitive options are.

4) if you are going to build a deck from scratch either it's an Elite deck or you're at a serious disadvantage from the get-go.

5) One can argue the above meta is not even fun. 

6) ... Vanilla to be a very solid option. As it stands, it's not.

7) You want to play vanilla-only? Fine, but it's incorrect to point it out as a neutral choice because, in fact, it isn't.

 

You make a lot of bold/strong claims that seem like opinions with little to no evidence, or that are supported simply by the specific group you play with feeling the same way.

 

1) Conquest is a complicated game where many different decisions are made each game, and different ones for each matchup.

2) At any point in time over the course of its life, it's still playable. There are a huge number of decks that can be made with the current card base, more than I could reasonably build and test competitively.

3) I disagree. The player base of this game is sufficiently small that it's unlikely the game has been solved. Also it's difficult to test with less people playing, and no official competitive scene.

4) I think the really good (and consistent) elite builds are actually fairly narrow.

5) One can argue lots of things.. doesn't make it true. There's also the ability to adapt and find solutions. Many cards are not universally good, they are good or bad within a meta.

6) It might not be perfect, but to say it's not solid is far too dramatic.

7) Since a large amount of the people playing now also played before and were presumably happy, it's at least an option to propose. This is purely my opinion, but the game always was, and still is, exceptional.

 

Although my position is different, I can understand those who prefer new cards and that it's a difficult situation wanting/trying-for everyone to prefer the same thing. I suspect that there are just two different needs that unfortunately cannot be met with the current home brew options. It's also difficult for people to understand the views of others because, without the single competitive scene, our play experiences differ and conclusions are made based on them that no longer line up with each other.


  • GasPoweredStick, Ultramarine and dnapolitano like this

#16
Eu8L1ch

Eu8L1ch

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 537 posts

@Intolerance, I'm happy we're finally starting to discuss the specifics.

As a quick note, playgroup-bias arguments are not very valid in this specific case, because I play with people mostly on OCTGN, so most of them live in different countries (thus have experience with different metas).

1) What you say is valid but, nonetheless, after many games you can memorise the vast majority of those informations (in particular for the matchups which are more likely to occur). Since the game has seen no new official releases since nine months ago, I'd say there was plenty of time for many players to learn the main patterns - especially considering that, while FFG was still running the show, we were getting (at least) a whole new cycle in the same time.

2) It's not just a matter of mashing some cards together: the combinations that make sense are not that many. In addition to this, if you were right, the Vanilla Warlords' threads should be bristling with activity.

3) Point me to a groundbreaking deck that has come out in the last few months, otherwise I can be reasonably satisfied with my claim: you want me to disprove a negative ("the game is not solved").

4) Fair point, but that strengthens my statement above: you're recognising that only a limited set of (elite) decks is really good. Also, it doesn't counter my statement that the same deck (it mostly boils down to warlord choice) but played with midrangers is weaker than if it were played with elites (in most cases, as I said).

I think literally 90% of the decks I have played against in the last months have STC, a few elites and Backlash in, so it seems like I'm not alone in this

By the way, I said I am open to discuss this statement in another thread - which seems like it might interest some people after all, so why not?

5) I'm talking about player experience here. You might find the perfect solution to counter deck A, but that doesn't mean playing that "solution" is fun.

6) Vanilla-only not very solid because of what I said above.

7) You wrote: "Since a large amount of the people playing now also played before and were presumably happy, it's at least an option to propose"

I'm not doubting it's an option. What I'm saying is there's no grounds to say it is the "most inclusive" one.

 

That it is tough to find a solution I agree with. I like to think the time I'm spending writing here might help the various parties to move a step closer.



#17
steinerp

steinerp

    Advanced Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 833 posts

I'm not really interested in getting into this discussion as it boils down to personal preference.  But to answer your question 3.  Stefan created a core Baharroth deck that was very solid and didn't exist in between worlds and the release of BCL/Apoka cards.  The champ cards have made a number of new decks viable, mostly Ragnar but probably others as well.  However the look at new decks argument itself is sort of self confirming.  Most people are playing with BCL/Apoka cards and there aren't a lot of people playing just core so new "just core" decks aren't getting built at all, let alone in "groundbreaking" fashion.  Remove BCL/Apoka cards from the environment and I think you would see more deck like Stefan's pop up.  


  • GKZhukov and GasPoweredStick like this

#18
Kaloo

Kaloo

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 941 posts

The example of the European Championship or Renewed Faith are perfect examples. If you played with the Apoka cards (EC) or BCL cards (RF), then you are not ready for one of those tournament, because you don't know the cards and your decks aren't valid, etc. It means you are playing a game and half of the events aren't for you. It means that when you read a strategy deck post about a warlord there is 50% chance you don't know the cards they are talking about, or that even if you know them, you can't play them in your gaming area because they play the other format.

 

Just as a little bit of clarification here; the Unofficial Euros will be a Vanilla tournament with no fan made cards because it's a real-world tournament combining multiple metas with a diverse spread of experience between the various fan made sets (if at all). I don't really see why people are limited from playing in a Vanilla tournament other than maybe being bored with the meta just because they've played with Apoka/BCL cards.

 

After all, if you don't know the Vanilla cards I'd be rather surprised ;)


  • Caldera and GasPoweredStick like this

#19
Drazzt999

Drazzt999

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts

Drazzt999, that has not been my experience at all with OP driven players.  What store did you play out of and who were the OP players in that store?  Which online leagues did they partake in prior to game being cancelled?

 

In my experience, most competitive players left Conquest as soon as the game was cancelled if not shortly after.  To a competitive player, a dead game no longer is a competitive game.  Some stayed and then left later for other reasons, either family commitments, life commitments, loss of in-person opponents and not liking OCTGN interface, or frankly being tired of the inane drama that crops up periodically in Facebook and these barely used forums. I know one person that actually dropped out of Conquest because they only want Vanilla cards and are upset at the fan made content.  You may know different OP players so this is why I ask who it is, because the players I spoke with daily played in the online BCL tourneys over the last few years and were involved in Worlds.

 

This is a game many of us just want to play and experience in a positive note.  Many people that have left the game comment on how ridiculous the forums have gotten and I am with them.

 

So I am interested in the story of your local shop and the players there.  Who they were and how something so small as two options for formats staged on the internet forums/facebook has influenced their decisions.  What were you and them doing before that you cannot do now?

 

I am thankful for having BCL as an option.  The premise that two options leads to people leaving just doesn't make sense to me. A situation where Apoka is the only design team where in order to play online Conquest I must play their cards is distasteful to me. That is to say, I play in online tournaments, I have been involved in the community for a long time, and a one format system would lose me not keep me. There are plenty of people that feel the same about both formats and this is why I don't understand how people could even look at a vanilla-only tournament as exclusive to them. It is by far the fairest and most inclusive format.

 

I don't know what my store can do to help you, but here is the story:
I play at the same store as the Canadian champion. We all dropped when we saw the community was not able to unite and be adult.
Many of us were loyal followers of the Black Crusade Leagues for years, (doing top 4 or so) until the league decided to go with the BCL format instead of Apoka format. (I'm not sure if it is authorized to say that they are doing a better work, so I won't go into the details.)
 
Dnap said: "I have been involved in the community for a long time, and a one format system would lose me not keep me."
Life must have been so hard for you under the evil reign of FFG's one format system... I'm glad your survived.  ;)


#20
dnapolitano

dnapolitano

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 509 posts
Where in Canada? It's strange. They could have just not played apoka cards given that at the time their community was your store and octgn. Seeing that BCL was first announced and Apoka came on the scene after, a group upset at a split could just ignore apoka at the point.

Surely you are joking about your comment about me suffering through the game when it was alive. If you want an adult community here don't play childish games with me.
  • Stefan2581 likes this