The Last Homely House
Undying Lands => Valinor => Topic started by: Tbiesty on December 27, 2012, 04:57:42 PM
-
Greetings!
With the population on Gemp-Lotr server at http://www.gempukku.com/gemp-lotr/ continuing to grow, I've spoken with Marcin about setting up a 2nd server strictly for the purpose of allowing players to try out new/updated formats. By doing this on a seperate server, players that have no interest in exploring "unofficial" format updates won't be bothered by it; it also avoids confusing new players who have never played on Gemp-Lotr before.
The premise is that the existing formats, as "officially" defined, leave room for improvement. So by exploring new formats, or updates to existing formats, let's see what we can do to eliminate NPEs and make gameplay a better experience.
Examples of things that can be explored:
1) Galadriel, LR
2) Erkenbrand's Horn / New Chapter
3) Namarie
4) Rapid Reload / Demoralized
5) Ulaire Nelya, TotNR
6) "Other NPEs based on player suggestions" (Feel free to provide others that you can think of, thanks!)
This additional server can be found at: http://tlbiesterfeld.servehttp.com/gemp-lotr/ (http://tlbiesterfeld.servehttp.com/gemp-lotr/)
To start out, updated versions of the following formats are available to try out:
1) Fellowship block (sets 1-3)
2) Towers block (sets 4-6)
3) Towers standard (sets 1-6)
4) King block (sets 7, 8, 10)
5) King standard (sets 1-8, 10)
6) Movie block (sets 1-10)
7) War of the Ring block (11-14)
8) War of the Ring standard (sets 4-14)
9) Hunters block (sets 4-14)
10) Standard (sets 7-19)
11) Expanded/Open (sets 1-19)
Other formats can be added. Let me know of others you are interested in.
An important thing that I want to make sure is restored as part of this effort is the notion of "No card left behind." Since enforcement of the rules is taken care of by Gemp-Lotr, implementing minimal errata to allow this is now possible. The initial version of the updated formats includes these updates:
Elrond, Lord of Rivendell: Exert twice to draw a card.
Galadriel, Lady of Light: Exert to play Elf ally at twilight cost -2.
Ottar, Man of Laketown: Exert and discard a card to draw a card.
No Stranger to the Shadows: Unique.
Savagery to Match Their Numbers: Twilight cost 2.
Relics of Moria: (limit once per phase)
Ulaire Nertea, Messenger of Dol Guldur: …if you can spot another Nazgul...
Forces of Mordor: Spot X roaming minions to add (X) (limit (3)).
Sam, Son of Hamfast: Exert twice to remove burden.
Sting: Exert to reveal 2 cards from hand.
Flaming Brand: Bearer must be [Gondor] Man. Bonuses only if bearer is Aragorn.
Filibert Bolger: Exert Filibert Bolger and…
O Elbereth Gilthoniel: If bearer is wearing The One Ring, …
Gimli, DotMR: Only affects Shadow number of underground Fellowship block sites. (clarification)
Galadriel, LotGW: Only plays forest sites if they are Fellowship block sites. (clarification)
Aragorn, Heir to the White City: ...you may exert Aragorn to remove (2).
Horn of Boromir: Discard to use.
The Palantir of Orthanc: Remove (3) instead of (1).
Saruman, Keeper of Isengard: While you can spot 6 companions, Uruk-hai are fierce.
Bill the Pony: Bearer must be Sam.
Frying Pan: If bearer is Sam, exert him to wound a [Moria] Orc he is skirmishing.
The Shire Countryside: Unique.
Legolas, Dauntless Hunter: (limit +2)
Uruk Regular: Unique.
Steadfast Champion: At the start of the regroup phase…
Aggression: Unique. Spot a Dwarf and discard this condition to draw a card.
Memories of Darkness: Does not play condition from discard pile.
Galadriel, LR: To play, spot 3 Elves. Fellowship: Exert Galadriel and …
Fell Deeds Awake: (limit once per phase)
Mordor Fiend: (limit once per phase)
A Light In His Mind: (limit once per phase)
Base of Mindolluin: (limit 2)
Final Account: Opponent chooses which 1 of the 2 you take into hand.
Strange-looking Men: At the start of the maneuver phase...
Demoralized: Unique.
Orkish Smith: ...may shuffle an [Orc] condition from discard pile into your draw deck.
Ulaire Nelya, TotNR: Only replaces opponent's sites.
Madril, DoO: ...exert to a make a minion site number +1 for each threat...
Namarie: Unique. Maneuver: ...discard a Shadow condition for each token here. Discard this condition.
Erkenbrand's Horn: (limit 1)
If you decide to give this a try, please provide feedback here about how the gameplay improved/worsened from a particular format change, and include replay links for specific examples. As needed, the formats will be adjusted based on this feedback, and the cycle will continue.
Thanks!
-
Can you post a full list of the errata you have implemented so that people don't have to look up every single card to see the changes?
-
Can you post a full list of the errata you have implemented so that people don't have to look up every single card to see the changes?
Thanks for the suggestion! The initial post has been updated.
-
I hope this is just for testing and not a full server.
Otherwise that would REALLY be splitting the community apart.
I don't think including new formats splits the community, but having two servers definitely does.
-
Especially since the errata is the work of a small group, not the masses (not to burn you down tbiesty, but some people just dont like altering the official format).
-
Why not the same server, different formats?
For example:
Movie
Movie - Changed Rules
That way you keep all the players on one server.
-
One does not simply introduce new formats.
Anyway, I welcome an attempt to introduce more balanced custom formats. However, a server split and the resulting community split is not a good thing. Custom formats, if available, should be hosted on the same server. Players who are not interested in unofficial formats can just disregard them (as I disregard formats like pre-Shadows multipath and any format that includes Treachery and Disease Deceit, the edition that never saw the light of quality assurance. One should also give new players more credit, catching up with the formats, given that there are links to texts that explain them require nothing past basic literacy.
As for the idea of introducing new formats, the first sentence of my post still applies. We should tread very lightly. Here are guiding principles that should be observed, listed by the order of priority.
1. Decipher's formats should be a starting point. That is, Decipher's X-list and R-list should be observed.
2. Changes should be made gradually and iteratively. Only one or two changes should be made at the time, followed by extensive playtesting.
3. Given (1) and (2), there are a few suggestions that, in my opinion, should be prioritised:
a) War of the Ring Expanded format
This was an official Decipher format before The Hunters came out. Eliminating the editions that never went through Q&A (Treachery and Disease) solves many problems with the current Expanded format. Since there is a War of the Ring Standard Format, there should be War of the ring Expanded format as well (and I would even consider it 'official', in the same way that Movie format and War of the Ring standard are official).
b) Custom movie format.
Starting point: Movie format.
Proposed changes: implement the next official version of the Expanded X-list and R-list (Shadows Expanded X-list and R-list), with the exception of the site manipulation cards, which do not affect movie format.
Consequences: Galadriel LR and Legolas DH are X-listed. Certain cards (Savagery, Elrond, ...) are R-listed instead of X-listed.
c) Custom Standard and Expanded formats
Scrap the poorly playtested editions (including at least T&D and Age's End).
4. Once new formats are in place and stable, further custom changes to the X-list and the R-list of those custom formats could be discussed. That includes possible errata (however, I think that the cards that are even on the Open R-list and the whole T&D and Age's End should just be scrapped). We should be extremely conservative when considering those changes and use an iterative process.
That addresses most of the examples in the original post, with exception of Nelya. On that topic, brute force X-listing Nelya would not solve the problem (I would probably switch to Underground site manipulation with Gandalf and Traveled Leader instead of hobbits). Site manipulation mechanics, by both FP and Shadow, should be carefully analysed in its entirety and possibly adjusted. However, I consider that a much lower priority than the changes mentioned in the point 3, which would take quite a long time to be tested.
-
I hope this is just for testing and not a full server.
Yep, this is a "test" server just for testing out format updates. There's no merchant, no leagues, no tournaments; just build decks and play casual games in the formats available (then provide feedback). With enough participation, if a updated format is well-received, then perhaps it could be added to the "real" Gemp-Lotr server for all to enjoy.
I'm sure everyone has a different suggestion to use as a starting point, but until someone actually put in the time to put these theories into action, we won't really learn anything. So here we are, I'm giving this a try to gather as much concrete playtesting data as possible.
Like I mentioned before, we'll just focus first on sets 1-10, then work on other formats, such as War of the Ring Expanded, Expanded, Standard, etc. that include later sets, since those present more hurdles.
If you'd like to participate, great! If not, no hard feelings.
Thanks!
-
This sounds like a great idea, though like others I'd eventually prefer to see everything on the same server.
I suggest you get Expanded up and running asap, as it is one of the three most popular formats.
I suggest a larger committee be implemented to consider what cards need errata, and what that errata should be. In general, I don't like the idea of errataing cards, and the sizable list you've already put forward gives me pause.
As to the Gamling/Horn/New Chapter combo, someone else suggested that the issue would be resolved simply by X-ing New Chapter. I agree, and I don't see that card used for much else other than that particular combo.
As to site manipulation, I heard someone suggest a rule that you cannot replace your own sites. I like that, I think it would solve most of the problems. Should at least be tried out.
-
Saruman's power is waaaaay too strong too. deimate an entire fellowship? until scouring of the shire, this card made hobbits almost unplayable.
-
Saruman's power is waaaaay too strong too. deimate an entire fellowship? until scouring of the shire, this card made hobbits almost unplayable.
Hmm, thats the reason I dont like errata proposals. People always have their pet hate card and want it altered/banned. If we follow that we can just stop playing.
-
Saruman's power is waaaaay too strong too. deimate an entire fellowship? until scouring of the shire, this card made hobbits almost unplayable.
Hmm, thats the reason I dont like errata proposals. People always have their pet hate card and want it altered/banned. If we follow that we can just stop playing.
Yeah. The best thing, which has already be mentioned several times, would be a function that allows you to add a text next to the game you created. e.g. NO GALADRIEL LR Then the haters would be happy.
-
Saruman's power is waaaaay too strong too. deimate an entire fellowship? until scouring of the shire, this card made hobbits almost unplayable.
And after Scouring of the Shire, Hobbits are nearly unstoppable unless you can draw multiple copies of Saruman's Power.
Saruman's Power is from the very first set of all. Did people stop using condition-dependent decks afterwards, because Saruman's Power was too strong? Nope. On the contrary, people still use condition-dependent decks.
Hmm, thats the reason I dont like errata proposals. People always have their pet hate card and want it altered/banned. If we follow that we can just stop playing.
Agreed. I think we got off on the wrong foot with this new server, with that list of 30 cards already that he wants to errata. Errata should be the option of last resort, used only when there is absolutely no other way... and there almost always is.
-
Sorry I haven't been around the last few weeks, but my wife and I just had our first baby around New Year's, so I haven't been online much lately. I'll work on adding in other formats as soon as I can.
One thing I want to mention each of the errata are based on cards/combos/loops that are banned/restricted in various formats already, so there already are specific known "problems" with those cards that can be dealt with while still allowing "flavor" of the original to remain playable.
Thanks!
-
Sorry I haven't been around the last few weeks, but my wife and I just had our first baby around New Year's, so I haven't been online much lately.
Congratulations to both of you!
-
One thing I want to mention each of the errata are based on cards/combos/loops that are banned/restricted in various formats already, so there already are specific known "problems" with those cards that can be dealt with while still allowing "flavor" of the original to remain playable.
Speaking for myself, I'm still not comfortable with the idea of errata-ing cards. I much prefer X-lists and R-lists, simply tweaking formats so that the cards in question are no longer so overpowered, or even creating new cards that render the old OP cards less powerful (but not useless). The problem with errata, is it affects ALL formats, as well as changing the wording of cards that people have become accustomed to over something like a decade.
Also, I have an idea for a new format: A format for a SHORT game! The idea is to have a format that enables a game to be played in just a few minutes. The format is basically a modified version of Expanded, that I will call Abbreviated. Any deck legal for Expanded would also be legal for Abbreviated. The idea is pretty simple: Start at Site 6. Each player gets to start with 9 FP cards on the table totaling no more than 9 twilight, and 9 Shadow cards on the table totaling no more than 9 twilight.
The 9 and 9 rule is just easy to remember, it has not been tested yet, and may well need some tweaking.
Thoughts? Can we test this on the new server?
-
Congratulations to both of you!
Thanks!
Also, I have an idea for a new format: A format for a SHORT game! The idea is to have a format that enables a game to be played in just a few minutes. The format is basically a modified version of Expanded, that I will call Abbreviated. Any deck legal for Expanded would also be legal for Abbreviated. The idea is pretty simple: Start at Site 6. Each player gets to start with 9 FP cards on the table totaling no more than 9 twilight, and 9 Shadow cards on the table totaling no more than 9 twilight.
The 9 and 9 rule is just easy to remember, it has not been tested yet, and may well need some tweaking.
Thoughts? Can we test this on the new server?
An interesting idea. But that's more of a different game (with different rules about site path, etc.) than just a different format.
Format update:
I will add "War of the Ring Standard" to the test server next, hopefully sometime in the next few days.
-
An interesting idea. But that's more of a different game (with different rules about site path, etc.) than just a different format.
Site path rules are the same. The idea is to simply simulate starting a game that is already "in progress" and about 2/3 over.
If the reduced site path is blowing your mind, an alternative would be for players to take turns playing sites 1-6, at which point they start at site 6. Player choosing to go first would play the even-numbered sites. This would allow cards that spot/count types of sites on the path to be more relevant in Abbreviated.
-
Update!
War of the Ring Standard is now available on this server.
-
Just a reminder for folks: With Gemp temporarily (I hope) down, this server STILL WORKS. So, for folks who want to play, this is an excellent opportunity to try out these updated formats!
-
they lost me on castamir erata :down: ;D
-
I looked it up also, its totally unneeded. This isexactly why I am against such errata. Just random changes because someone just doesnt like a card. No-one ever complained about Castamir, no reports ever for overpoweredness, never got the ban but still an errata...
This way you will just alienate players interested because the game takes too many changes to get accostumed to. I wouldnt liek to play this format ever simply because of the too many and especially unneeded erratas.
-
There have been numerous complaints against the castamir (compare him to the Witch King, cheaper and does much more, especially with raider halaberd). However, I think he's less of a problem than Corsair Marauder
-
Corsairs balance the game by dealing with possession heavy decks. Corsair cards do not require errata.
My opinion is that, up to and including the War of the Ring block, only X-listed cards require errata. The situation is different in the Hunters block.
I've also noticed a bug in a single game I've played on the server. In a Movie 2.1 game, I was unable to play Nertea and Enquea from discard pile with Out of Sight and Shot, though they were there and the twilight was available (I was able to play Cantea, which costs 5).
-
Thanks for your comments! The erratum of Castamir of Umbar has been removed.
Version 2.2 is now the current version of the formats.
Sorry I didn't get to it sooner. These forums have been going down a lot for me lately (and it sounds like I'm not alone).
-
I've also noticed a bug in a single game I've played on the server. In a Movie 2.1 game, I was unable to play Nertea and Enquea from discard pile with Out of Sight and Shot, though they were there and the twilight was available (I was able to play Cantea, which costs 5).
I checked the replay and although you had Nertea, MoDG in your discard pile, you already had Nertea, Thrall of the One in play. That is why you could not play it.
-
Is the current errata list up to date?
-
This isexactly why I am against such errata. Just random changes because someone just doesnt like a card.
Agreed. In fact, I suggest that ALL the new erratas be stricken, and then as a group we discuss what changes should be made to each X-listed card one at a time. No other cards errataed until we've dealt with the X-list.
My opinion is that, up to and including the War of the Ring block, only X-listed cards require errata.
Agreed, with the possible exception of Galadriel, LR. I wouldn't even errata cards on the R-list, but I'd leave them on the R-list.
The situation is different in the Hunters block.
But not MUCH different. Expanded is not as broken as some people seem to think. #$&*@!, if it was, it wouldn't be tied for 2nd most popular format. I'm hard pressed to say anything other than Gamling/Horn/New Chapter is truly broken. MAYBE Deceit.
-
Is the current errata list up to date?
Yep.
As for adding additional formats, I was going to save (Expanded/Open) for last. Any opinions on what players would like to see next?
Examples:
Standard (sets 7-19)
WWDT (sets 9, 11-19)
Hunters (sets 15, 17, 18)
[Other formats...]
Let me know!
-
Update! Hunters block, Standard, and Expanded/Open have been added.
The following formats are now all available (completely R-list and X-list free).
1) Fellowship block (sets 1-3)
2) Towers block (sets 4-6)
3) Towers standard (sets 1-6)
4) King block (sets 7, 8, 10)
5) King standard (sets 1-8, 10)
6) Movie block (sets 1-10)
7) War of the Ring block (11-14)
8) War of the Ring standard (sets 4-14)
9) Hunters block (sets 15, 17, 18)
10) Standard (sets 7-19)
11) Expanded/Open (sets 1-19)
Please give it a try (http://tlbiesterfeld.servehttp.com/gemp-lotr/) and let me know how gameplay goes. If you want to play and don't see anyone else on the server, feel free to send me an e-mail and I'll get online if I can.
Thanks!
-
The large number of errataed cards is not sitting well with some of us. Any response to that issue?
-
And is there any response in playtesting outside your group?
-
I'm baffled this is still being tried. This makes it... what? The 9th attempt? 12th? 20th, maybe?
I say enjoy the dead game for what it always was, the good and the bad, and be happy we can still maintain a Community for a dead game after so long (and I think it's even growing, with Gemp!). For the one-millionth time: players who do not have legal authority from Decipher to do it should not be tinkering with the cards/rules in official formats.
Having a House Rules one, on the other hand, is ok, as it makes no matter, people in your House will play with your House Rules; if you want to fund a championship with only the people in your House, they'll abide by the House Rules; and whenever a tournament wans to be held for trying to get the biggest number of people playing it, it'll reverse to official formats and official rules. Having the house rules is nice, calling it "fixed X format" is beating a dead horse, because it's not (only an official source can "fix format X").
-
Given that Decipher was practically dead when they issued last couple of sets and that those sets undertook almost no playtesting (with Q&A people in all likelihood being laid off), there is nothing wrong in players trying to balance the game and prolong its lifespan.
By the way, there is no 'official source' any more (indeed, there hasn't been one for years). If MarcinS, who owns the Gemp server, decides to introduce any new format and call it 'fixed X format', he can, and the players would judge (play it or not) the format by its merit.
-
Which is what I said, House Rules. Some would adhere to it, others would just shun it. If he forced the change, though, like changing the filters for Movie Block to ban Galadriel, LR (which is not a card released in the last sets, btw...), for instance, players that didn't like the change would reverse back to GCCG and bam, and just like that, we now have two places where people play online again. It might seem nice, but since it IS a dead game, stuff like that fragments the community (for instance, if I decided to play on GCCG because of it having the official formats, I wouldn't keep playing in two places, I'd just stick with one).
As for "there's nothing wrong with trying to balance the game", yes, there is, it is actually, by all meanings known, "wrong", as in "illegal", as in "they don't have the authority to do so". They can do it, but not force the change as "This is what Official Format X looks like now", but rather "Hey, we're having a Movie Block tournament where LR is banned/changed, if anyone wants to join".
As for not having an Official source anymore, there's a difference between Official Sources not caring/not acting, and not existing. If you want to prove me wrong, I say get a company to release booster packs for a new LotR TCG Expansion. Use the pictures, the templates, the mechanics, etc. Sell it on the market, and see what happens when legal action is taken (and rest asured, if you do make any kind of profit - heck, even if you don't, depending on their legal department -, it will be taken).
I just want to explain that my problem is not with having House Rules. My problem is all the threads that read "Hey, me and my friends are fixing format X, or card Y, and this is where we're at. Jump in! Let's change the game and make the formats better!", while they SHOULD read "Hey, me and my friends don't like X, Y or Z about the game, so we're making a playgroup that plays differently; if you want to try some games like that, give us a shout.".
The only way I'd actually endorse forcing a Format change by the Community, on Gemp, would be if every single person in the world that finds their way to either Gemp and/or here agreed to make change X. All of them. Not one exception. If one person said "but I like to play LR in Movie Block!", then it's over, official format keeps LR. Because THIS would actually asure we're changing stuff to make the game better to every single individual playing it, not catering to the likes and dislikes of whatever group of people doesn't like X, Y or Z.
Until someone actually tries to pull this off, I take it as my job to keep pointing out they can't do what they are doing, lest people that play and enjoy the game get pissed off when some wackadoodle change is implemented, like "Shadow players can't add burdens anymore", because a group of individuals decided they didn't like to play against Corruption because it messes up the ARB decks, and since no one spoke against it, it "passed".
-
An interesting idea. But that's more of a different game (with different rules about site path, etc.) than just a different format.
Site path rules are the same. The idea is to simply simulate starting a game that is already "in progress" and about 2/3 over.
If the reduced site path is blowing your mind, an alternative would be for players to take turns playing sites 1-6, at which point they start at site 6. Player choosing to go first would play the even-numbered sites. This would allow cards that spot/count types of sites on the path to be more relevant in Abbreviated.
I like where this is going (shorter games), but it can't be done like this. What about burden and exertions adding up and piling on the characters? This would pretty much kill some strategies, making others too viable.
-
I thought I've spelled this out, but I'll be more explicit, since there seems to be some confusion.
These format updates do not replace "official" formats. They are new "unofficial" formats that start out the same as the "official" ones, but have some relatively small changes to them to try to help make them better. I have set up an additional Gemp-Lotr server (http://tlbiesterfeld.servehttp.com/gemp-lotr/), so that anyone that wants to play them and give feedback, to help these "unofficial" formats be as good as can be, is welcome!
Thanks!
-
Hey guys! I would like to know if anybody would be interested trying this new DC set with me on the server...
http://lotrtcgwiki.com/forums/index.php/topic,8055.0.html
Tbiesty told me he would be willing to add it, but I need some people to play with once in a while.
Anybody interested?
-
I have to say, I am not currently interested in trying this new stuff out...
a) so long as there are so many errataed cards
and
b) with new cards made up by (as far as I can tell) a single person.
As has been discussed before, if changes are made, if new cards are made, what I want (and what we need) is a TEAM of experienced players working together on this.
As of right now, all this new stuff is way too unilateral for my taste.
You guys thought the later Decipher sets were badly designed, because they had fewer people working on them? That will be nothing compared to new sets designed and tested by just a few people.
-
2 things ...
-the site appears to be down
-I'm not very interested in playing w/errata'd cards. What *would* interest me would be the ability to play, as me & my friend often do with real cards, with decks made w/any cards at all, _including sites_. IE, I can play my fellowship block deck with fellowship sites vs. his movie block deck with a mix of TTT and King sites. This would not be for a well-balanced match, this is just for fun.
-
Hello,
There is a French format on gemp which does exactly what you mean : Multipath. The last French Championship (october 2012, 20 players) was played in this format.
http://lotrtcgwiki.com/forums/index.php/topic,8148.0.html
-
Cool, thanks for pointing that out Enola. It's way on the bottom of the format list, I guess I never noticed it before. Shame about the long X-list, though. When playing with friends neither of us gives a tinker's cuss whether Decipher thinks Sting is broken or not.
Still, I appreciate you including explanations for all the X-listed cards in the thread you linked.