Card Game DB
Sign In
Create Account
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!
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!
0
LCGs: The Barrier to Entry (Thrones)
Aug 23 2017 09:00 PM |
istaril
in Articles
In anticipation of announcements regarding Netrunner, I was planning to write about rotation. The need, reasons, approaches, and alternatives to it. It’s a *huge* topic, and I just couldn’t get it all to fit in an article. It touches on too many issues, each of which merits serious discussion of its own; # of SKUs, complexity, buy-in cost, barriers to future design, the odd place evergreen products are in, the pace of release, the ‘lifespan’ of cards, health of the competitive game, profit margins for FFG, comparisons to magic, and the list goes on…
When people discuss rotation, though, it’s often first and foremost from the point of view of reducing the barrier to entry for new players. That’s not surprising - the rate at which you can take in new players is a critical factor in maintaining a healthy community. While LCGs pace themselves to a pretty reasonable ~14.95 USD/month subscription, Thrones at its rotational peak will “require†a buy-in of 987.35 USD over 51 SKUs (and 54 boxes) for 1475 unique cards - that’s daunting! But, honestly, not actually as bad as I thought it would be. While there are a lot of reasons to rotate, I think the arguments for rotation related to the complexity are overblown - the solutions to the barrier to entry problem lie elsewhere.
1. It’s not (just) about the money
There are plenty of tools to reduce the cost and intimidation factor of entry. Preconstructed decks could help (the Champion ones don’t, as stores don’t carry them and there’s no guarantee a champion deck is a good introduction to the game). Repackaging cycles could help; for instance, pack Cycles 1 & 2 together as 240 “1x†card product (~39.95; ‘core set’ pricing) once Cycle 5 comes out, reducing the peak # of SKUs by 22 and the cost of a cycle by half a while after its release without drastically affecting profit margins. Since cycles rotate out in pairs anyway, it’s a logical system. But these are band-aids to what I perceive to be the real problem; the point of entry to this game is a mess.
2) The Core Problem
Someone plays the game with you, realizes it’s amazing, and wants to buy-in. “What should I buy?†she asks; FFG clearly wants the answer to be “A Core Set, then the deluxe box for your favourite factionâ€. But you know what the real answer is different. The buy-in isn’t clear. The prospect of buying multiple cores isn’t very appealing, and the ‘game’ you get out of one isn’t very satisfying. Nor does it much resemble the game they’ll be playing in constructed. Then, after buying the Greyjoy Box (their favourite faction), not only do they get a bunch of non-Greyjoy cards they probably don’t feel like playing with initially, they might decide they really want to play with Victarion and feel the need to buy a big 29.95$ box for a single card.
We veterans get to help mitigate this; we have access to full collections, so we can hand people decks, or cards they’re missing. Proxies are widely accepted. But that’s damage control.
3) How did this happen?
The answer here is simple; the Core tries to do too many things. Melee, Joust, a playable “out of box†experience, opening the doors for constructed play, appeal to old players and new, include all 8 factions, start the card pool for a new game with a broader base, be affordable, build a foundation, be approachable, be Nedly, include fan-favourite characters. It puts in band-aid solutions like “out-of-box†deckbuilding exceptions, Banner agendas that just barely allow you to build a legal deck out of a core, etc.
And by and large, it succeeded at being one of the better launch products. It met most of those goals, with varying degrees of success. In contrast, I have heard L5R Core described as “borderline immoral†because the 1 Core experience is worse, and bears less relation to the constructed play people will see. It’s a weird sort of false advertising, for an entry product.
4) What can we do about it?
Interestingly, a year or two into a product’s life, a potential new core product is freed from many of the constraints it operated under as a launch product. The large® cardpool means that a new core wouldn’t necessarily have to include options for every faction, or include the aforementioned band-aid solutions. Most importantly, a new core would not be responsible for kick-starting the whole game’s constructed/competitive scene, and could have fewer cards (but in 3x).
5) 2nd Edition Core 2.0?
There are a lot of potential approaches here; 2-faction cores that serve as a Games Workshop-like entry point, cores built first and foremost around pre-constructed decks, replacing the Core with pre-constructed decks entirely + themed power tokens etc - the list goes on. I’d love to hear your takes! I want to elaborate one odd one in particular; the “Core†core.
- A core product that includes *only* “core†cards usable by any player. Rules, Tokens, a full playset of a variety of plots, agendas, economy cards and other neutral staples. Cores are typically priced cheaper (~17.1c/card vs deluxe 19.2c/card), but even at a deluxe-price point of 29.95, we could realistically expect ~152 cards (4 agendas, 8 faction cards/banners, ~50 plots (20 2x, 10 1x), and 30 neutral staples. To avoid alienating veteran players, this could be entirely reprints of cards already proven to be staples (ideally with different art), which many would buy anyway to enable them to have more decks built. This box would come with a clear warning on it “Not a complete game, requires a Faction Pack for playâ€.
- Faction packs, priced like Deluxe Boxes (29.95) and replacing them in the product cycle, that include only loyal cards for a single faction. Again, full playsets of plots and cards (and one alternate faction card/banner) that sit at the core of that faction’s identity. They would come with decklists enabling you to build 2 complete 60 card decks when supplemented with a Core, that have been tested against one another to result in an engaging matchup from a single core+faction pack deluxe.
- Chapter Packs would make an effort to include fewer loyal cards, so that (on paper) more of the cards are available to all players. You could imagine a set of “Banner Packs†(8 packs, each with 20 non-loyal cards for a faction) intended to promote a faction as a banner too.
Now let’s not kid ourselves; little would change for existing players. Many of us would be buying all the Faction packs anyway (as we already do). The cardpool would have roughly the same number of total cards if faction packs replaced deluxe boxes. If you think rotation needs to be faster for the competitive scene, or game design reasons, or cost of entry reasons - that won’t change with this proposal. What would change, though, is it’ll be easy for a player to buy-in to our great game. And for the long term health of the game, I think that’s the single most important thing for FFG to focus on.
- samuellinde, SeaLintact, Antaiseito and 2 others like this
24 Comments
Such an important content!
Highlight -> Little would change for existing players.
Loved that.
It shows that the article approaches the issue in a new entrant perspective. It is very hard to step out of a veteran shoes and look at the problem with the right perspective.
Thank you for the article.
Here's my take. First, LCGs solved the major issue with Magic and other collectible games: namely, the collectible part. Like many others, I got into LCGs over CCGs because I couldn't justify to myself the cost of buying a competitive deck. Assuming you buy in fully, LCGs give you every deck for a reasonable ongoing price. If collectibles are your thing, great, but LCGs offered a different choice. But yes, ultimately, the model demands a rather high buy-in for players who aren't there in the beginning.
Also, what LCGs gained in economy, they lost in flexibility. Magic's rotation system ensures that problematic cards rotate away, and WotC has proven itself very willing to act in response to broken cards and combos. LCGs display none of this: problematic cards remain problems for a long time, and the lack of any kind of swift rotation mechanic means the solutions to these problems must come in the form of errata, which (understandably) FFG clearly loathes.
To a large extent we haven't seen this problem yet in Thrones - there are cards like Treachery which I personally think need design changes (it needs to be neutral), but I think there are no game-ruining cards. But we know a couple of things: one, that FFG doesn't have the manpower for really in-depth playtesting, and that power creep seems inevitable. I doubt I am the only one who has noted how the Netrunner competitive scene has more or less evaporated - astonishing, give the hype that surrounded the game when it debuted. This has been the result of a toxic card environment. Cards like Faust and the fast advance strategy made competitive play simply un-fun. FFG was glacially (see what I did there?) slow to respond.
This brings me to point number two: at heart, this is a problem with FFG. They are spread way too thin: they cannot manage this many competitive games. The constant clusterfucks in OP are one thing; the obvious mistakes made in the design of these ostensibly competitive games are another. Part of this simply lies in FFG's pump-and-dump model of game promotion. The other lies in the LCG model itself, which is, as I said, less flexible.
I really have no solution as far as the FFG end goes; they know better than I what they need to do to be a profitable game company, and despite my increasing impatience with the company I still buy a **** tonne of their products.
On the LCG end, the solution seems to be to be to add more flexibility. I've often wondered if going back to CCGs just for a bit of perspective wouldn't be a wise idea. So, let's have a three-year rotation model; a new core set, a few deluxes, and a few cycles of packs in every three year period. This would be the equivalent of Magic's Standard format - for the more hard core players, there would also be a Legacy format in which every "set" would be legal. New players would have regular new entry points; problematic cards would rotate out; competitive players would have two formats to compete in.
That would be my prefered solution - but it would take commitment on the part of FFG to a new competitive format. Given their past performance, perhaps I'm asking too much here.
I think you also adrsses some very good points that need to be discussed. It can/should even be discussed here.
However, what suprised me in a very positive way about Istaril article is that it gives almost 0 concern about what competitive players need, tournaments issues, problematic combos and other things that matter to people like me that are trying to play it competitvely and learn the game enought to win tournaments.
Thinking about a noob perspective and talking noob issues is a very hard thing when you are a full grown comeptitor - not my case, but defenetely Istaril´s and probably yours.
Of course, noobs will eventually move to the competitive scene and they will be worried about erratas, combos, RL and rotation regarding cards they own, etc...
But, in order for us to for hope that (to attract noobs), forgetting what competitors need and want can be welcome. Simply looking to a person walking in the shop wanting to learn a cool game is very much require to not miss the most important points.
I started buying a game in a box that I brought home and played for weeks. I could never imagine going to tournaments and that Long Voyage had an errata. we miss this begginers perspective so much, imo.
Once again, I agree with all your points. They are exclent solutions for making OP great.
Idk why am saying this, but I think the fact that the correct problems you mention were negleted in the artcile were my favorite thing about it.
Love
The three-core model has existed for a long time; Thrones (1.0), Conquest, Thrones 2.0, L5R all adhered to it. Netrunner didn't really need 3 (hugely diminishing returns on the third), nor did LotR - but with two you didn't have a full playset of every card. The objective system allowed SW to have a 2-core build, and Arkham has gone for that model as well. (I don't know about CoC or Invasion).
The thing is, the three-core model isn't awful. It does some things well; it allows a single launch product to have 2-3 times as many different cards, expanding the card-pool right out of the box. It does so while only testing a single product/sku, so losses (if it flops) are not as bad. But I think there's a definite case of "well, that's the solution we've taken in the past, so that's what we'll do now", when that solution might not be as fitting - and a company with more resources, like FFG, could certainly take alternate approaches (like having more product at launch than just a core, for instance) - even when it's a bit riskier.
What are these readable podcasts? They are weird. How do you call them? They seems too good for this community. Pls stop
I'm more radical. A small cardpool is better.
Constructed cardpool will be:
- core set
- 8 deluxes
- max 4 cycles at the same moment, after the 5th the first 2 rotates out
There will be no revolution. But the entry level drop significantly. In this scenario a new player will have to buy:
- 2 core set
- 1 deluxe for his favourite house
- some packs starting from the more recent
Proposed sollution does little (to none) to improve entry level. In current state of DE, buying one for your main faction does not allow you to play on competetive level.
New players usually need to catch up, so "catching up" is the real problem. Not limiting cardpool (and it's total price).
Despite that, I am 100% for lowering rotation to 4 Cycles.
As I said, I think rotation is important too (for a number of reasons) but I don't think it solves *this* problem. I think bringing down the max buy-in and the total complexity marginally just isn't enough.
I also want to clarify that I'm not saying the existing model is a failure; there are good reasons to launch an 8 faction 1x core, and there's a pretty good reason to launch deluxe boxes with cards for everyone early on in the game's life (not to destabilize the cardpool too much!). I just think that now that the cardpool has reached a little more maturity, there's room to play with that system and change how deluxes and cores work. It's also easier to identify the real 'staples' that would go in such a core.
The way I'd envision this happening would be for Gencon 2018 (or Worlds, or Stahleck) to be the launch point for a new "core" core and two faction packs; at least one of which is a "marquis" faction (Targaryen). Maybe Targ and Bara, or Targ and Greyjoy.
I actually really like this parallel, from Movies to Comics to LCGs - there's a lot to learn from that comparison.
I refuse to believe that. This is their forum, there is a community manager (or something) overlooking this forum. Someone, maybe even LCG designer will probably read those ideas, ore hear them frome someone and maybe this will be discussed.
LCG is money, business. Good ideas sometimes cannot win in such enviroment. Introducing new distribution model is BIG deal. Risks need to be taken into consideration, money needs to be invested. Someone will have to make brave decision whether to do it or not. I am able to believe that some people (fathers of GoT) migth have already tried to sell this idea. Butin the end it is collars decision whether to proceed or not.
FFG was brave enough to intorduce LCG. Then they decided to go into rotation. What we are discussing here is the natural step in LCG's evolution. The problem (
) with evolution is, you cannot stop it. Sooner or later it will have to happen (or the object is already dead). But, we as, Got enthusiasts, would like this to happen ASAP for game's sake.
Actually it is awful because it kills game being playable as board game. Much friendlier for casual customer would be core set with just some factions but each card x3 and then quick release of deluxes adding more factions to game.
What happened at GenCon?
This.
In the UK at FFG RRP it would cost a new player £465 to get up to date with the released cards.
I am second-handedly experiencing this problem after introducing 3 new players into the Cornish Meta. (I own all the cards)
One player has already started to expend but highlights the cost and buys the Chapter packs most worthy of purchasing (Referencing The White Book New Player podcast and buys the packs with most versatility and highest rated cards generally) combined with the CP's relevant for the factions he enjoys playing the most.
This is pretty much what I did as a late entrant to 1st Ed in 2012 when the already bursting cardpool was incredibly daunting! I bought the core, picked a faction I like the most, Lanni, bought their deluxe box and any CP that made a good "Power behind the throne" deck.
Back then GJ and Martell were late entrants to the game and were not included in the Core. Tyrell and NW did not exist.
Another friend... of whom joined at the core set plus 1st CP but would not be anything more than a casual player, says he likes the way GJ played out of the core, but will not buy any more cards until the GJ deluxe box comes out... Its been nearly 2 years...and it wont be in the next 2 boxes either. Because he see's the CP's as a waste of money for paying £15 for 2-3 cards he may/ may not use. So its safe to say he will not be a subscriber for FFG and at best will cherry pick the CP's at a later date.
One statement of Support I do have for FFG is that Joe Mirando's Champ deck has been a great tool in introducing players to the game. After letting new players use my cards (which harms my competitive play) and sparking an initial interest, I can recommend this as a great fully functioning deck to own for a measly £15. Which is affordable. (Dave Bamford - Banter- went 3-3 at a UK Regional so it ain't bad by any means!)
I don't think that FFG would change their ways however...
However maybe our player community can...
In first Ed - Team Covenant started to break down the later cycles into faction specific cycles. The would get a whole cycle and then re-sell it by faction, so you could buy for example GJ cycle cards only...
I think this idea has legs, Imagine as a new player being able to join and buy your favourite faction cards for the price of 1-2 normal CP's. Imagine my friend (The Greyjoy player) I could go to him and say you can have all the greyjoy cards from the 1st cycle for the RRP of 2 packs (Obviously - the person breaking down packs has to cover their costs and make a profit).
In the first Instance I believe that this is probably the best way - A new player will buy the DB for their favourite house, that's inevitable and a core. (Yes it requires 3x cores to be competitive) but being able to get all your favourite faction cards fully from one cycle, that's pretty great to a casual or new player, surely!?
I am aware this doesn't really do much for neutral cards but you could split them up as to the best for the houses playstyle.
If FFG, instead of the community did this, it would not lose them any money, as regular players would subscribe any way at the start, it just makes it more accessible to the new players hen they have to catch up. Once they have caught up, they become monthly subscribers...
It would work as a positive handicap for the new player.
Just my opinion.
That depends purely on the luck of the draft though as you are not guaranteed on what you draft, or get in your purchased pack if you plan not to draft it.
There are also many cards in draft not legal for the joust format.
As a casual player of LCGs and former competitive player of Magic, what I strongly dislike when picking up new FFG LCG games is quite simply... the bloody chapter packs.
Quarterly big expansions (alternating faction focused and theme focused) are way easier to keep up with and require much less investigation time for purchase decisions. This is what they did in the end for Call of Cthulhu and this was great.
For more mature games, 2 expansions per year would do it.
The result of the contant, exhausting chapter pack flood: I gave up the prospect of a full Netrunner collection (and therefore purchasing anything more for this game - what appeals to me with LCGs is a reasonable hope that I can get the full thing eventually, which I achieved with CoC).
To follow-up on deluxe expansions: having to wait like two full years before getting the box for your favourite faction (if you're unlucky) is just not acceptable. They should do twin faction boxes the first year, then adjust new content depending on power balance and missing mechanics per tournament experience.