Gemp-LotR rules, format and errata committee

[hsiale]

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.

[Rhyme]

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...

[TelTura]

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.

[FM]

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).

[Merrick_H]

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

[Zatzir]

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.

[Thornicator]

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.

[Iron Prime]

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

[eomund]

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.

[Floydos]

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.

[tanzhamster]

floydos we are talking about sets 1-10 at first, because the is allready enough that could be changed.

[wjtk]

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.

[FM]

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.

[MarcinS]

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...

[FM]

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).