The Last Homely House
Undying Lands => Valinor => Topic started by: MarcinS on April 17, 2012, 09:36:47 AM
-
Seing as Gemp-LotR is getting a lot of attention and also hearing what people have to say about:
- the formats being stale (limited viable deck choices),
- certain cards being overpowered (or perceived as overpowered) if using the official Decipher rules.
Given the power of Gemp-LotR to enforce rules, I'd like to propose to create a committee of players, who will decide (and shape) the future of the game, at least in the limited scope of Gemp-LotR website.
For me the obvious choice as the first person is - Tbiesty, who has provided me with a lot of feedback on the issues and has started a discussion about card erratas and format changes here:
http://lotrtcgdb.com/forums/index.php/topic,7911.msg77143.html#msg77143
I would like to get your (community) opinion about these (maybe) upcoming changes.
Here is how we would like the changes to be applied:
1. A list of proposed erratas for cards will be made by the committee and posted, most likely on this forum.
2. Feedback about these will be gathered and reviewed by the committee
3. A list of erratas for cards will be proposed for testing.
4. A selected constructed league(s)/tournament(s) will be using the errated versions of the cards, instead of the normal ones.
5. Results of the league(s)/tournament(s) will be reviewed by the committee, and some of the cards from the list will be decided to be final, at which point the normal version of cards will be replaced by the errated ones and used for all game-play going forward.
6. The cycle will continue...
What I want to avoid:
1. Rushing any changes and erratas.
2. Having separate formats for "official Decipher cards/rules" and "house cards/rules". As Decipher is unable to continue the work and monitoring of the game, we have to start making the decisions ourselves, as current state of the game is not healthy. Introducing more formats (possibly doubling the amount) is counter-productive, as it will only further de-fragmentation of the community.
The errated cards will be specially marked, to draw player's attention that the card works differently than a printed in paper one. Also all errated cards will have current text on them (images).
So, what is your take on this matter? Any opinions or feedback?
-
I like it to keep it the way it is. I find a single errata round not having any effect, cause the pool might live up a little, but then staleness will occur again and we are back a point zero. The only way to live up the game is to introduce a flow of new cards, much as the star wars players committee has done, but I know from earlier attempts that Decipher does not like that a LOTR committee is formed. There has been communication with Warren Holland before without any positive result.
-
people don't want to play with new cards. all good players quit after mt doom anyway, so any of the nostalgia players want to play the cards as is with minimal x list or r list
-
i agree with bradeier.
the only card i would be willing to errata (ever) would be galadriel, lady redeemed. i feel that banning her is destructive to the movie block environment, but in present form she is too powerful. but i would not be interested in errata or unbanning of any cards in any format that i play. the only other format that would benefit from any changes )(imo) is towers standard, and the banning of the palantir (even tho that'd be my favorite deck to play in towers standard).
what i WOULD be interested in doing is creating custom sealed decks for league play.
-
I would love edit card images to show current errata (as well as any new erratas) that happen. When I was just starting on here a lot of the fellowship cards that were errata'd (thrors map for instance) threw me for a loop when the program enforced text that was different than what was on the card. Since this is a digital product it is very easy to fix that.
Errating cards for the latter sets would get me interested in trying them, and could possibly make it so that more people try them out, since the general perception i've heard is that the sets were rushed and poorly tested, much like what happened at the end of SWCCG's physical run.
It also would be nice to take advantage of the digital format to minimize the x/R list.
-
The largest problem is the lack of a viable metagame, since there is no influx of new cards at all. You can't fix that without adding new cards.
A committee would have to get the trust of the players, I'm not sure that it will be that easy...
Also, agreeing on what cards to fix, and how, won't be that easy.
At the moment, I think the most broken cards in Movie block is the mass condition removal, I'm not sure everyone agrees with me on that.
-
I would love edit card images to show current errata (as well as any new erratas) that happen. When I was just starting on here a lot of the fellowship cards that were errata'd (thrors map for instance) threw me for a loop when the program enforced text that was different than what was on the card. Since this is a digital product it is very easy to fix that.
Yeah, if the actual care images themselves are not updated, then I'd say I'm not interested in more erratas. It is very frustrating not knowing what a card does (especially when it could be a bug with the software), and introduce a mechanism to do more erratas would have to include a means to update images.
I didn't vote, I'm rather indifferent, but completely opposed if the gametext of teh cards isn't updated.
-
I don't want new cards without new pics/text. I really don't want errata at all but for Lady Redeemed. I don't play sets 10+
-
This would be the obvious first step to the creation of virtual dream cards and virtual expansions. For that reason alone I would support this endeavor; without a committee to regulate errata and shepard the metagame virtual expansions would be impossible. I would point out that that should be kept in mind; as people have pointed out it's useless to simply regulate the current (dead) card pool.
-
I would love edit card images to show current errata (as well as any new erratas) that happen.
It's already done for very few cards (for example set 1 Gimli), it's just a matter of me getting my hands on the new images. This will hopefully gradually done, to have all the official errata in there.
-
Lotr is fine the way it is. Play the formats you want to enjoy it how you want.
SWCCG made a committee, and they messed things up constantly and it's just awful.
Creating different environments with different card pools to make it interesting is better than trying to make or errata cards.
-
Creating different environments with different card pools to make it interesting is better than trying to make or errata cards.
This argument makes absolutely no sense to me. Why don't we just revert all the errata Decipher did then?
-
SWCCG made a committee, and they messed things up constantly and it's just awful.
and the Star Trek PC does things right. It can go both ways, it's not a doomed endeavor.
Creating different environments with different card pools to make it interesting is better than trying to make or errata cards.
That's exactly all that making new cards or errata would do but with more restrictions and less freedom. Inferior result, less freedom.
-
I would love edit card images to show current errata (as well as any new erratas) that happen.
It's already done for very few cards (for example set 1 Gimli), it's just a matter of me getting my hands on the new images. This will hopefully gradually done, to have all the official errata in there.
I've been meaning to tell you that I have an open-source font file for that purpose that does a whole lot better than the crappy errata images we have now.
-
the later sets are pretty bad. like, in set 19 there is an eomer who does the same stuff as third marshall AND is valiant.
thing is its not like swccg which had, idk, 4 episode 1 sets. for most people, its like 9 new sets. i played some during shadows but i know many didnt.
-
what i WOULD be interested in doing is creating custom sealed decks for league play.
I would also be very interested in doing this (especially as I prefer sealed deck over constructed). New starters will make leagues way more interesting (2nd TTT league is quite predictable now), also I think draft packs is a huge area that could be improved to give us another way to play.
as people have pointed out it's useless to simply regulate the current (dead) card pool.
The current card pool is not so dead. There are so many cards that are practically never played. They could get an errata to make them playable. I think we can really get a lot out of the existing sets before we need to think about creating any new ones.
the later sets are pretty bad. like, in set 19 there is an eomer who does the same stuff as third marshall AND is valiant.
And has no twilight cost reduction so he doesn't fit into typical starting fellowship. Small details sometimes matter :)
for most people, its like 9 new sets. i played some during shadows but i know many didnt.
There are problems indeed in later sets. Though I think most of them in Hunters and later. I played the game a bit longer and WotR Standard was really an interesting format.
I think the first thing to do should not be trying to fix Movie Block (which is quite OK), but trying to make Hunters block (especially RoS and T&D) less of a mess than they currently are.
-
The current card pool is not so dead. There are so many cards that are practically never played. They could get an errata to make them playable. I think we can really get a lot out of the existing sets before we need to think about creating any new ones.
...
I think the first thing to do should not be trying to fix Movie Block (which is quite OK), but trying to make Hunters block (especially RoS and T&D) less of a mess than they currently are.
This. While virtual sets are the most intriguing to me, it would be a valid starting point to try and fix what we have first. Like you point out, there's a lot of problems with the later sets, not the least of which being power creep, which could be addressed with this committee.
-
i think the ideia of a committee realy good, and i aprove 100 %.
I agre if the last two post and the first thing to do is create errata on the last expansions (RoS and TD) i belive that decipher dindt care more about the game and make this sets without thinking....
-
Since there is no option to separate those who want to play Official or House, i've got to say no to the errata, except those which were made by Decipher.
I only play Movie, TS and FOTR and would not like new cards introduced, just keep it the way it is. If someone is bored with the game because of the same combinations, there is a simple solution - don't play or change to less common formats - austrian, poorman's etc...
Ofc, if anyone wants to create new/virtual cards, make new erratas etc i think they should have their own space to do that, unless there are technical problems with separating official/house rules.
-
What I want to avoid:
1. Rushing any changes and erratas.
2. Having separate formats for "official Decipher cards/rules" and "house cards/rules". As Decipher is unable to continue the work and monitoring of the game, we have to start making the decisions ourselves, as current state of the game is not healthy. Introducing more formats (possibly doubling the amount) is counter-productive, as it will only further de-fragmentation of the community.
I somehow completely missed your second note there until the poster above me pointed it out. Firstly, any and all errata changes that we make are going to have to be tested, and simply globally pushing the changes through will alienate people unfamiliar with the electronic format and do a disservice to those who simply planned to play the game as they remember it. There is going to have to be a Public Test Realm (PTR) similar to how the online games Starcraft II and Team Fortress 2 work. These games go through relatively frequent updates, balance patches, and new content, and so in both titles a completely separate download is available to participate in the ongoing PTR betas. The players downloading the PTR know that they are in an experimental environment and must opt-in to test things out. Once things are ironed out there, then it is pushed out to the "real" version of the game. This (I assume) would be implemented in Gemp via a separate format--"PTR Standard" "PTR Movie" etc etc.
Now, all of this is probably obvious to anyone who's given five minutes thought to how this would be implemented. My point in bringing it to the table is that this should then be extended to the formats that are created--yes, created. Any Errata or R-list/X-list modifications that we make to the current formats should be kept to a minimum to conserve the old-school play--the primary reason that anyone ever took the time to learn the interface, re-build their decks, and get with the new flow. I highly doubt that there is a single person actively playing Gemp who decided to try it out based on the assumption that it was going to be a brand new experience--we all joined because we wanted to play the game we were nostalgic for.
Taking the game in new directions, striking out for uncharted experiences is something that we should be excited for, and something that I personally have looked for for several years. #$&*@!, it's the reason I joined this website in the first place; I assumed that there would be some sort of torch-passing community set up that was innovating within the game. While I was disappointed to find that there was no such movement (not for lack of trying, it seems), there was comfort in that this community did a great job in keeping the game alive--making sure that it still existed long enough for Marcin to come along and revitalize it. That should not be forgotten. If we are serious about setting up a Player's Committee, then it has to be dedicated to two divided goals: the first of preserving the original formats, making only mild modifications as needed to preserve their original magic and keep on top of any metagame developments; and secondly to strike out anew, to set up a "Gemp Standard" format, to nurture the creation of new content, implement new ideas, and take our beloved game in new directions.
TL;DR If we do not preserve our history and safeguard the original formats, then none of the other old players will be attracted to the site. If we do not innovate, then no one will stay.
-
I love the idea of changeing cards to make them playable because it's totally sad that there are cards which are x-listed or r-listed and way to much cards not worth to play. Of course I want to keep the game the way I fell in love with some years ago, but I would like to become it way more versatile and I would love to see new decks/strategies with the cards which exist.
Creating new cards isn't what i'm into, because there are allready enough cards even if they are not playable.
-
So, to explain a bit more about the (possible) erratas.
As said, there will be leagues which will be using the errated cards while they are tested, instead of normal versions, but for any other game (not in this league), the cards will stay the same (old version). Once the errata is finalized, all games will be using the new versions.
There are two reasons for not having (after the errata is final) two versions of each format, old and new:
a) currently there are 10 formats, and already it happens sometimes where two players are online, they both want to play different format, if we introduce another 10 formats (with erratas), then this will happen even more often, that players will be willing to play different formats,
b) if you want to have 2 card versions officially supported in 2 separate mirrored formats, then when you open a booster of a set, you'd have to have 50/50 chance to open the new or old version, that means that user will have 50% chance of opening a version he doesn't want/need
-
b) if you want to have 2 card versions officially supported in 2 separate mirrored formats, then when you open a booster of a set, you'd have to have 50/50 chance to open the new or old version, that means that user will have 50% chance of opening a version he doesn't want/need
If it's a format-specific errata, there's no real reason to have two different versions...taking the infamous Flaming Brand as an example, if the regular FotR version stayed the same and we had an errata for Expanded that removed the "may be borne in addition to one other hand weapon" clause, then why have two representations of the card in the database? It seems simpler for the player to be able to use his same copy of Flaming Brand in a game of FotR as Expanded, but have it do two different things depending on the format. I can see this is likely not currently supported by the engine, having multiple versions of a card depending on metacontext instead of in-game context, but conceptually it's the same as an X-List.
-
I can see this is likely not currently supported by the engine, having multiple versions of a card depending on metacontext instead of in-game context, but conceptually it's the same as an X-List.
Well, validity of the deck (X-List, etc) is checked when you create or join table, not during game itself, so it's much different than the card version.
Also, if I did that, and had one version of card, then once again we would be having a "hidden" card text, where errata is not on the card in game. Not when you open the booster (how do you know if you should show old or new version), not during deck building (which one to show), neither when you actually play the game (how the JavaScript client should know which one to display?).
-
My suggestion of creating new formats should not be mistaken with new cards or errata tampering as it seems to have been.
An example would be: Sets 4-10 Sets 1-3 and 11-13 etc etc. Just pic random sets that don't have formats with them currently to make new environments
I also implied to add/remove cards from established formats X-lists to change them. I discussed this previously with my "Casual Expanded" format before which essentially would just be expanded with an additional ban list of about a dozen cards. This is something that can be done with formats to change the meta every so often.
I DO NOT support changing the Decipher cards in any way. I don't want to play with people's dream cards. Surely I am not the only one who doesn't want to be at the mercy of people's random desires for this game. Regardless of the amount of design and playtest implementation, I was interested in the site because I was excited about the nostalgia of playing DECIPHER's LOTR, as Brad previously explained. Not a fan created alternative.
-
I mean, by all means try out new formats with erratas and whatever you wanna try. Just do not get rid of the status quo. Leave all the formats that exist now as they are and available.
-
I also implied to add/remove cards from established formats X-lists to change them. I discussed this previously with my "Casual Expanded" format before which essentially would just be expanded with an additional ban list of about a dozen cards.
As far as I remember, the reason for introduction of this format you gave was, that every Expanded deck started with Erkenbrand's Horn, etc (or insert any other broken card combination from latest sets). For me this means that the format is broken, and should be either removed or fixed.
I don't think a solution is to create a new format "Fixed Expended" and do the same for every other format, as this would double the number of formats and render finding a game partner impossible. Don't get me wrong, doing that would require like 10 minutes of my work, but I think the end result will cause the game to slowly die.
-
What I would like to see done with this committee is to make sure the game is maintained in a healthy and fun state (especially for new players or players that haven't played for many years).
Things that I think would help that cause:
1) Focus on sets 1-10 first. (That is what most players prefer to play anyway, and what most new/returning players would learn to play with first.)
2) Cleaning up the R-lists and X-lists with minor errata to just those cards. (This simplifies the deck building process for new players. Plus, those cards are generally overplayed in the formats that they are allowed in because they are that powerful; minor errata will tone them down just a bit).
3) If someone finds an abusive/broken strategy, determine the correct action (e.g. a minor erratum or rule clarification) to resolve the situation.
4) Eventually, if possible, and if people care, see if we can do anything to better balance the game from sets 11-19.
Things that I think would hurt that cause:
1) Introduce a bunch of new dream cards to the card pool. (Most players like the overall strategies/concepts the game already provides.)
2) Introduce a bunch of new formats. (Fragmenting the playing community would decrease the ability of this game to survive. That's why "leagues" are great; they encourage players to come together.)
-
Since there is no option to separate those who want to play Official or House, i've got to say no to the errata, except those which were made by Decipher.
I agree with what is written above.
I'm indifferent if you put these errata in a different format.
I'm in favor if you put the errata in a different format AND let some of the best DC sets be added in other formats (ex. some made by Thranduil).
-
Tbiesty's got the order right, I think. We've had a lot of discussion over things that would be a pretty major eventuality but would be months away at best.
-
currently there are 10 formats, and already it happens sometimes where two players are online, they both want to play different format, if we introduce another 10 formats (with erratas), then this will happen even more often, that players will be willing to play different formats
If this is a problem, it means that before we start work leading towards doubling formats, we should work towards doubling (tripling etc.) number of players. There are many things that can be done about this and majority of them does not require coding skills at all, so it's a good thing for volunteers to do (I would gladly help in this).
Old formats must stay available. At least for casual games. And an "oldtimer" tournament from time to time would not be bad either.
Before the game grows big enough to support doubling the number of formats, I think we should do no changes to cards. Looking at the votes in the poll, there is way too much to be lost if we force changes on everyone. I voted yes, as I would like the game to live and evolve, but I see that there are many people who enjoy the game as it is and don't want it to change.
I highly doubt that there is a single person actively playing Gemp who decided to try it out based on the assumption that it was going to be a brand new experience--we all joined because we wanted to play the game we were nostalgic for.
I know of at least one player who has never played LotR outside Gemp. And I think the first thing to do is to find ways to attract such players to the site. Every game needs new players to go on, as old ones leave from time to time. And there are many people we can aim at - interested both in gaming and LotR story, but never involved in LotR TCG during its days of physical cards playing due to one of many possible reasons:
- being too young at that time (FotR was released more than 10 years ago, Age's End nearly 5 years ago, a lot of people have grown up since then),
- not wanting to invest money into a TCG - Gemp does not require this,
- living in a place where there was no active playing group.
if you want to have 2 card versions officially supported in 2 separate mirrored formats, then when you open a booster of a set, you'd have to have 50/50 chance to open the new or old version, that means that user will have 50% chance of opening a version he doesn't want/need
Every time you open a booster, you are anyway more or less sure of getting at least a few cards you don't need ;)
But, for this problem, a fix is easy. Whichever you prefer: either make the card count for both new and old version towards collector's tournaments (those are only where this matters) or mirror the boosters as well - for each set having cards with old and new versions, there will be a possibility of buying a booster which contains old versions and one containing new versions.
Also, if I did that, and had one version of card, then once again we would be having a "hidden" card text, where errata is not on the card in game. Not when you open the booster (how do you know if you should show old or new version), not during deck building (which one to show), neither when you actually play the game (how the JavaScript client should know which one to display?).
When you open the booster: doesn't matter for the general view (cards are too small to read), both versions in the magnified card view (added bonus: players get aware that this particular card has two versions). The same in merchant and deck builder. During the game: each table has a format, each card has only one version for any given format, I guess that's enough information to learn the program to display the correct one.
-
I support errata using the official DECIPHER's erratas... with corresponding card image will be great
if some over powered card still exist.. use x-list / r-list / new format to adjust that will be fine....
I guess I will lose interest very quickly if too many fan-based card were introduced...
-
If this is a problem, it means that before we start work leading towards doubling formats, we should work towards doubling (tripling etc.) number of players. There are many things that can be done about this and majority of them does not require coding skills at all, so it's a good thing for volunteers to do (I would gladly help in this).
Old formats must stay available. At least for casual games. And an "oldtimer" tournament from time to time would not be bad either.
Increasing the number of players is a thing difficult to quantify--you are correct in stating that it is important, but I think having the committee set up will help towards that. So long as we nix any decisions that show to have adverse effects, and encourage those that enrich the game, it will prove to both new and old alike that the game is growing and thriving, and not going to die anytime soon. We must proceed cautiously...not slowly, but carefully. If we are quick enough to revert once something has been proven to be a bad idea, and swift enough to accept good ideas and test them, that would be enough.
I also like your notes on the casual vs tourney differentiation. There must always be some sort of old-school casual Movie, Expanded, etc, but we need not always have ongoing tourneys to the old specifications. That simplifies other workloads while ensuring effort towards the cause.
-
I support errata using the official DECIPHER's erratas... with corresponding card image will be great
if some over powered card still exist.. use x-list / r-list / new format to adjust that will be fine....
I guess I will lose interest very quickly if too many fan-based card were introduced...
Specially since fan-based is not exactly "tested, tuned and considering every possible angle" as of right now. If it comes to this, though, with a serious comitee WITH Decipher's authorization to issue errata, it could be great. But I agree with hsiale, that what we need is new players (lots and lots of new players), not people messing around with cards so new players who decide to scour the net for deck ideas suddenly finding out that their cards simply do not work as they should and are unhappy.
Also, any change should be discussed with THE PLAYER BASE, not within ONE Forum that might or might not be frequented by all the player base (and the player base needs to be much, much larger).
-
I voted "no" as I joined this to play the game with friends who are no longer in the same location as me and for the nostalgia.
I only really play Fellowship and Movie blocks, although I will sometimes participate in other tournaments. Overall Fellowship and movie blocks are pretty well balanced with the current errata and x-/r- lists. Things only started to majorly decline when Decipher started having their financial issues (around the time of Mount Doom/War of the Rings Block) and fired all of their competent designers and testers and made over-powered cards just to try to sell product before the license was yanked.
Anyway, I'm somewhat against a PC if you will for Gemp-LOTR due to the rigidity of the system and the fact that players frequently have a hard time letting go of their personal bias when making decisions that will affect every one. For example, I was personally against banning The Shire Countryside, but frankly it was a very good thing for the game environment.
Regards,
Merrick_H
-
I'm more in favor of banning cards than issuing more confusing errata.
I think cards should do what it says on them, to ease the transition between IRL and online play (I really prefer playing IRL but have to do with online most of the time).
If horn is such a problem in expanded, just ban it? Banning one card to make a lot of others a viable option is a good thing imho.
-
A committee has its pros & cons. It can be done, but cannot turn into a bunch of whiny people turning the game into a grief-stricken mess, like SWCCG did. I love that we have this game, but keep in mind, without new cards ever being produced, it will become stale. It's up to us to ensure we do things carefully.
-
I'm "on board" for a committee. SWCCG and Star Trek CCG both have committees. One didn't do such a great job, the other (IMHO) did. Those involved could learn a great deal from both previous attempts before even starting - hind sight is 20/20 as they say!
I think tbiesty definitely has the right idea. Clean up/fix the early sets, then work on the latter sets. After the game has stabilized, maybe in a couple years, people can look at new cards etc.
More formats is not the answer, the Continuing Committee (Trek) spent forever trying to pare down the formats until they got to about 4. Too many formats just breaks the community up further...
Just my $0.02
-
I'm indifferent on the committee, but more formats is definitely not the answer (as everyone seems to agree). However, I don't see anything wrong with new formats (for example, sets 4-10 only) created for the purposes of leagues. Leagues are already managed so that there aren't too many on at once, so the new formats will give active players a chance to try something new without overwhelming new/returning players.
Something else brought up previously in this thread - instead of always having starter decks available for leagues, why not have some people design other fixed packs for leagues. This way the decks could be balanced better, and could provide more variety - perhaps the free peoples and shadow decks could be chosen separately.
-
Why to not change some broken cards to make them not that broken or make some cards playable? Every1 cry about Horn Filter or Namarie or LR Galadriel, so change it, don´t be lazy. almost 50% players agreed that Namarie is so broken....you can have insantly 4x4 condition removals on table.... and in regroup you can reinforce tons of tokens. So why don´t nerf Namarie to be unique and need exerted X hunters to add X tokens. Ability will be same, but sort of risky. Same with Horn Filter deck...Freeps don´t need to thnik, just throwing out all followers that he can for no penalty. So make Frenzy of Arrows playable...to need spot only minion, not archer. You want have 10 followers on table? Baah you will suffer for that luxury.
-
floydos we are talking about sets 1-10 at first, because the is allready enough that could be changed.
-
I'd like to see Galadriel LR banned during upcoming Movie Block Collector's league, this card kills too many Shadow decks. Elfs doesn't need it anyway, they are very powerful even without her.
Just my opinion.
-
And here we go again... I wonder if someday, people who care about the game enough will finally have left so that one of these waves of "let's errata stuff without any official license to do so and force the changes upon the other players!" will get through.
Long story short: get permission from Decipher to form an Official Player's Comitee and issue errata for the cards, or I'm against it, because otherwise it'll be people trying to "force" their way of playing upon the others "because it's better". Consensus only goes as far as where there's backing for it, so "having a vote" for the sake of voting, without official permission to implement the changes, has no value whatsoever, if a player decides to play Lady Redeemed, he will, because he can. No matter the voting, he's within his rights by the rules. Just don't play people that use such decks if you don't want to.
-
Long story short: get permission from Decipher to form an Official Player's Comitee and issue errata for the cards, or I'm against it, because otherwise it'll be people trying to "force" their way of playing upon the others "because it's better". Consensus only goes as far as where there's backing for it, so "having a vote" for the sake of voting, without official permission to implement the changes, has no value whatsoever, if a player decides to play Lady Redeemed, he will, because he can. No matter the voting, he's within his rights by the rules. Just don't play people that use such decks if you don't want to.
It's difficult to choose not to play against people using these cards, if you face them in tournaments, both live and maybe in the future - online on Gempukku.com...
-
Tournaments follow the rules. If you want to play tournaments, you have to abide to the rules, and of course, be prepared for dominant/opressive strategies. It's an integral part of competitive play. Which is why any change to these must have Big D's "OK", otherwise it's just people imposing "I think LR should be banned because she makes it impossible to play my pet -insert the deck's name here- deck on the tournament scene", which, frankly, is not reason enough. I can understand players having a gentleman's agreement of not playing her, but if someone comes to play going for the throat, unless it's an official ruling by D or someone with the powers to do so, I think people can't complain, it's within the rules. If the rules are not cutting it, change it. But CHANGE it, not "change" it, as in "we decided it's better this way". That's an arbitrary exercise of your own reasoning, which is not only wrong to impose on people, but depending on the degree to which you take it, illegal (not in the prospect of a Card Game, of course, but I hope the "wannabe player's committees" finally get the point).
-
With the coming of the Standard Constructed Tournament in 4 weeks, i'll go back on this post, hoping that someone will X-list at least Erkanbrand's Horn / Gamling's Horn
If not be sure that i'll post the complete decklist and 95% of players will play that stupid overpowered deck.
-
Which is still allowed by Standard's Rules, and unless that "someone" that X-Lists it is Decipher (directly OR indirectly), it's not part of the Standard X-List, meaning either the format will have to be "House Rules", or Standard players will still be allowed to play Erkenbrand's Horn, wether we like it or not AND wether it's in the "House Rules" X-List or not, because the format is being announced as Standard and as such it has a body of associated rules that DOESN'T include Erkenbrand's Horn in its X-List.
-
And another round of playerscommitte has been started. Not that I am against a committee, but this discussion is been held for years.
I dont think x- or r-list cards in the current formats is the solution. Neither is is something like houserules.
If people have problem with playing certain cards just play a different format.
X-list GLR isn't the sollution.
Imho the sollution is to reprint the sets: So set 1 becomes set 20 and so on. In that way u can fix the cards with erratta's on a different format. So sets 1-3 get reprinted in sets 20-22 give that block a new name and rotate movieblock out and so on. That wau u get 38 sets. Next to that I wouldnt mind a new set. I still like to see an Annatar ringbearer.
-
I would like to see a committee that can shape the future of the game within Gemp. I think it's important to curb abusive strategies like the Gamling/Horn combo.
HOWEVER I think the focus of the committee should be on developing new and/or revised formats which curb the abuse. New X-lists, new R-lists, new format rules. No more erratas, no new cards, just new and revised formats which make the game more playable. The official Decipher formats should also remain in circulation, and players can choose between the two.
-
[...] new format rules. [...] just new and revised formats
I'm highlighting the main points here, since you yourself mention that D's formats should remain available. If they're to remain available, then the are the "official" formats associated with their names, and everything else is "house rules". I have no issue with that, I fully support "House Standard", for instance, but when you focus tournaments on "House Standard", you take away from players the possibility of playing with their cards, and bottom line is: it's better to let players enjoy THEIR cards than to ban a card for other players NOT enjoying playing AGAINST it (there are exceptions, when a ban is actually necessary, but as a start, this is the general guideline), so if Gemp simply decides to "kill" those cards by not supporting their formats anymore, instead playing only "House X" formats, this would scare newer players from learning the game, and also make CURRENT players unhappy (no matter how vocal que opinion AGAISNT Erkenbrand's Horn is, if people complain is because OTHER people play it, which means SOMEONE enjoys it).
I think any kind of action without legal and valid support from D is simply not worth it, since it lacks the official support needed to be enforced, and will result in an even more fractured community.
I also think that the game can be officially called dead, which won't stop us playing it, of course, but I think it's realistic at this point to just assume that D is never giving their leave for a PC to do anything, and they're also not releasing new cards for the game, Hobbit movie or no Hobbit movie, so I say we enjoy the game we have, and if we don't like a certain card because a card is oppressive, we simply don't play it. Creativity has a limit when the card pool is also limited, and since it won't grow again, we just have to accept that, eventually, we'll have the "perfect" version of each strategy, which will basically turn the game into "rock, paper, scisors", so if we want to spark any creativity, "side-tournaments" with "House X" formats is our best bet, provided they're SIDE tournaments, not made into the regular tournament formats.
-
I'm highlighting the main points here, since you yourself mention that D's formats should remain available. If they're to remain available, then the are the "official" formats associated with their names, and everything else is "house rules".
Clearly any ruling, errata, or format that does not come from Decipher can never truly be considered official. But ultimately "official" is just a word, and what's truly important is keeping this game playable, keeping this game fun. I view Gemp as a tremendous asset in terms of providing a way for people all over the world to keep playing this game. If Gemp did not exist, I would not be able to continue playing lotr, because there's just not that many players around here still interested. So, Gemp is a powerful force in providing an opportunity for us to keep playing.
However, this also means that Gemp itself has a lot of power in dictating HOW we can play, both in terms of limitations and in terms of possibilities. I put it to you: If Gemp ruled that, for example, Erkenbrand's Horn was now no longer legal to play... do you really think that people would stop playing lotr on Gemp? Because that ruling isn't "official?" I sure wouldn't. I'd keep playing in any way Gemp would let me, and would probably end up being happier for it in the long run.
But once again, I'm not suggesting that Gemp stop supporting official formats. There is definitely a place for those. What I'm suggesting is that Decipher left us something that can be improved upon, and that Gemp has the power to make and enforce those improvements, with new formats that, while not "official," may prove to be more playable and more popular in the long run.
it's better to let players enjoy THEIR cards than to ban a card for other players NOT enjoying playing AGAINST it (there are exceptions, when a ban is actually necessary, but as a start, this is the general guideline),
Open is the only format that bans no cards at all, and I think you'd agree that it's not very popular, because there's just too much room for NPEs (Negative Player Experience). But I think we broadly agree: I hate banning cards, and prefer a medium that allows as many cards as possible, without being broken.
if Gemp simply decides to "kill" those cards by not supporting their formats anymore, instead playing only "House X" formats,
I don't think anyone is really suggesting that Gemp should do this. However, I would suggest that a "House X" format could ultimately prove more popular than official formats, by virtue of making the game more playable, more fun, less stale.
this would scare newer players from learning the game,
You know what scares newer players from learning the game? Seeing some schmoe play out 16 followers on the first turn using Gamling and that Horn. Or the Orc Culture Demoralized super-swarm tactics. Or infuriating Gollum/Smeagol site manipulation. Or a number of others.
I think any kind of action without legal and valid support from D is simply not worth it, since it lacks the official support needed to be enforced,
Within Gemp, all it needs to be enforced is someone to make a notation in the programming. Presto, enforced.
I also think that the game can be officially called dead,
Agreed. No new cards, no new rulings, no new erratas, and no new official formats. The very definition of a dead game. Of course, Poker is a dead game, but people have played it for more than a century.
which won't stop us playing it, of course,
It won't stop me playing it, but it has (to a certain extent) stopped me from playing formats where abusive strategies can be used. It has driven me towards formats with more limited card pools, which if you think about it, is really no different than banning a BUNCH of cards, including the abused ones, but also including a lot of good cards that AREN'T abused. What we really need are new formats that give us all the good cards, and none of the bad ones.
but I think it's realistic at this point to just assume that D is never giving their leave for a PC to do anything,
Agreed. But it doesn't really matter. For me, Gemp is my lotr playing world. It's pretty much the only place I play anymore, and there's a bunch of other people playing there too. Gemp has all the power it needs to make and enforce any rules within that environment that it chooses to, Decipher or no Decipher. "Official" doesn't matter, what matters is that Gemp basically has the power to do what it wants.
and they're also not releasing new cards for the game, Hobbit movie or no Hobbit movie,
I previously argued against any committee-designed new cards... but you know, I'd really like to see some cards from the upcoming Hobbit movies. Certainly they shouldn't be legal for any "official" formats, but for some new (and better) Gemp formats? I think that would be great.
if we don't like a certain card because a card is oppressive, we simply don't play it.
What, the honor system? That would work if all players had honor... but let's get real: Some players like cheap strategies, and will use and abuse things if given the chance. It's just human nature. I suppose we could all just immediately concede a game whenever it's apparent we're playing against someone using one of these strategies... but that doesn't really seem right either. I think it would be better to let these strategies stand in the various formats where they are allowed, and if you play those, then you know what you're in for. BUT hey, give me a BETTER format where I can play with the vast majority of my cards and not worry about that cheap stuff, and I would much rather play that.
Creativity has a limit when the card pool is also limited, and since it won't grow again, we just have to accept that, eventually, we'll have the "perfect" version of each strategy, which will basically turn the game into "rock, paper, scisors", so if we want to spark any creativity, "side-tournaments" with "House X" formats is our best bet, provided they're SIDE tournaments, not made into the regular tournament formats.
What's the point of having tournaments if it eventually boils down to rock-paper-scissors between a half-dozen abusive strategies against which there is no reasonable defense? The tournaments *I* want to play in, are the ones in which a wide variety of deck types and strategies all have a viable opportunity to do well... and I hope that Gemp will eventually support such tournaments in new formats.
I'm not saying we shouldn't have tournaments in official formats as well... but if given the opportunity to play in a tournament where an abusive strategy couldn't be used, versus one in which it COULD be, I know which one I'd choose.
-
You know, you make some compelling arguments there. I still think the problem with enforcing through Gemp is that:
a) There's a real issue with "who decides what"; and
b) There ARE other ways to play.
If Gemp starts "pushing it", I'm afraid people willl just drift over to GCCG, Lackey or whatever, and this would give us a fractured community.