Gemp-LotR rules, format and errata committee

[hsiale]

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.

[TelTura]

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.

[bebpc]

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....

[jahataku]

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.

[TelTura]

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.

[tanzhamster]

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.

[MarcinS]

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

[TelTura]

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.

[MarcinS]

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?).

[CT]

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.

[CT]

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.

[MarcinS]

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.

[Tbiesty]

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.)

[Cw0rk]

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).

[TelTura]

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.