Gemp-LotR Leagues - schedule, ideas, results, etc

[MarcinS]

I'm fine fixing the stuff you all request in this thread (prize payout, prices). But so far, most of the suggestions here would ruin any game economy in a month and cause other undesirable issues. I've appointed hsiale and CoS to figure stuff out and come back to me with a suggestion, and I hope they will get there somehow.

Here is what I would like to achieve:
1. Choice of whether to participate in a league or not should be viable one. So if I don't like playing sealed, I should not feel obliged to sign-up anyway, to get the 18 boosters + 3 starters worth of cards at the price of 50g (5 boosters), as if I didn't sign up I would be at a disadvantage, compared to other players.
2. People should avoid signing up for leagues they do not intend to play, as it would artificially increase a final prize payout. The only way to prevent them signing up is the entry price. Once someone signs-up and commits to playing the games (and does reasonably well) he should be rewarded with product above the entry price.
3. The system should not require a special police task force to find and ban people who try to exploit it. As an example (that is often used in this thread), on GCCG you were given product whether you lost or won a casual game. If someone wanted to exploit it, he could just ask a friend and keep creating a new game every minute and immediately concede, and get all the free product he wishes in no time. Yes, I do realise it's impossible to create a system that is free of exploits like that, but the possible exploits should be either easily detectable or possible only on a small scale. For example in case of Gemp you are given only 10 games per league week, to limit the extent of a possible exploit. Also I have noticed some people entering a league with multiple accounts to inflate the prize payout, but I was quickly able to detect that and ban the offenders (about 80 accounts total).
4. And finally - people should acquire their collections slowly. I do realise it's a shocker, especially if in real life you were buying 2-5 boxes of every expansion to be able to compete in tournaments, but if that was the goal here - quickly give everyone all the cards they want, then having a collection would no longer have any point if everyone will have everything anyway. Unfortunately there is no way of modelling the distinction between casual players, who were buying 10 boosters of each expansion total, and hard-core players buying 5+ boxes in a free-to-play game. Unless you want me to start charging real money for extra gold, not that I would even want to do this for LotR due to Copyrights infringement. If you decide not to participate in Collector's constructed league/tournament due to card availability, and the fact that you don't have your full deck in your collection yet, please keep in mind that everyone else is in exactly the same situation as you are, so you are not at a considerable disadvantage here.

Please keep in mind the above points when responding in this thread and address them if possible in your replies.

[sgtdraino]

That was before the introduction of currency and merchant.

Do you expect for 50g participation in sealed league to keep the 18 boosters and 3 starters worth of cards?

Not necessarily. I might expect to keep the cards I got initially, though. One starter and a few booster packs.

And for the 50g participation cost, if you manage to win 50% of the matches (5 in each week) you will receive 12 boosters total (worth 120g) + foils.

Maybe I would be more comfortable with the process, if I understood it better. All I really know now, is that I can play a guy if I haven't already played them, and if I win sometimes I get a booster pack, but lot of times I get a cheap foil. Perhaps you could explain this process better, or direct me to a thread that would?

So, in your above example, if you play 40 games in a month, and you win 20 of them, you get 12 boosters?

Suppose you can't play that often? Suppose you can only play, say, 20 league games per month, and win half. 6 boosters? What determines when a player gets a booster?

Some people just either can't calculate or expect to be thrown free stuff at them at every corner.

It's not free, it costs 50g. I think the expectation is that when you pay to play in a sealed deck tournament, you are essentially buying the cards you play with. That's what most of us are accustomed to over the years.

I'm fine fixing the stuff you all request in this thread (prize payout, prices). But so far, most of the suggestions here would ruin any game economy in a month and cause other undesirable issues. I've appointed hsiale and CoS to figure stuff out and come back to me with a suggestion, and I hope they will get there somehow.

What about just allowing players to keep the cards they initially get, at the beginning of the league? That should roughly equate to the 50g price, yes?

Here is what I would like to achieve:
1. Choice of whether to participate in a league or not should be viable one. So if I don't like playing sealed, I should not feel obliged to sign-up anyway, to get the 18 boosters + 3 starters worth of cards at the price of 50g (5 boosters), as if I didn't sign up I would be at a disadvantage, compared to other players.

But if you do like sealed deck, but can't play 40 games a month and/or just aren't a very good player yet, the viable option would be to not join the league. Your primary goal here is to both encourage people to join the league, and also encourage them to play games, yes? I can understand taking measures to limit people who join and hardly play at all, but I'm not sure it's reasonable to expect players to play 40 league games a month. I'm curious: What percentage of league participants actually hit that mark?

2. People should avoid signing up for leagues they do not intend to play, as it would artificially increase a final prize payout.

Then perhaps the equation which dictates the prize payout should be adjusted, to only account for the number of players who have played a certain minimum number of games.

The only way to prevent them signing up is the entry price.

Why prevent them from signing up? That's just a symptom of the problem, you need to treat the cause. Just negate the reason for people to sign up and then not play. Once there is no advantage to sign up but not participate, people will stop doing it. As it stands now, 50g doesn't prevent a bunch of people signing up and not playing, because they'll just run you ragged creating fake accounts that give them 50g to sign up and then not play.

If people are signing up just to boost the prize payout, then make the prize payout dependent upon a certain minimum level of participation.

Once someone signs-up and commits to playing the games (and does reasonably well) he should be rewarded with product above the entry price.

For sealed deck, I think a participant should get product equal to what they spent to join, at a minimum.

3. The system should not require a special police task force to find and ban people who try to exploit it.

Agreed. So design the system in such a way that it is self-enforcing.

As an example (that is often used in this thread), on GCCG you were given product whether you lost or won a casual game. If someone wanted to exploit it, he could just ask a friend and keep creating a new game every minute and immediately concede, and get all the free product he wishes in no time.

Easily defeated: No product for losers, and some certain minimal time requirement, such as a game lasting 5 or 10 minutes before it counts.

Yes, I do realise it's impossible to create a system that is free of exploits like that, but the possible exploits should be either easily detectable or possible only on a small scale.

It might be impossible to build a perfect system, but I think you're selling yourself short. I think you can build a system that is nearly exploit-free, or at least would take so long to "grind" as to discourage most people from doing it.

For example in case of Gemp you are given only 10 games per league week, to limit the extent of a possible exploit.

How does that limit the exploit?

Also I have noticed some people entering a league with multiple accounts to inflate the prize payout, but I was quickly able to detect that and ban the offenders (about 80 accounts total).

Wouldn't it be easier to just design a system where a bunch of multiple fake accounts wouldn't affect things in the first place?

4. And finally - people should acquire their collections slowly.

I'm down with that. I just think the current system is TOO slow.

If you decide not to participate in Collector's constructed league/tournament due to card availability, and the fact that you don't have your full deck in your collection yet, please keep in mind that everyone else is in exactly the same situation as you are,

No, people who play 40 games a month and are above-average players will be building their collections at a considerably faster rate. Those who are skilled and able to play all the time will quickly outstrip those who are less skilled, and cannot play as often. This gap will only increase as time goes on.

[MarcinS]

Maybe I would be more comfortable with the process, if I understood it better. All I really know now, is that I can play a guy if I haven't already played them, and if I win sometimes I get a booster pack, but lot of times I get a cheap foil. Perhaps you could explain this process better, or direct me to a thread that would?

Second post in this thread you posted this question in, here is a direct link to the post:
http://lotrtcgwiki.com/forums/index.php/topic,7983.msg77873.html#msg77873

What about just allowing players to keep the cards they initially get, at the beginning of the league? That should roughly equate to the 50g price, yes?

Does it mean, that constructed leagues, where you don't get to keep any cards, the entry should be free?

Then perhaps the equation which dictates the prize payout should be adjusted, to only account for the number of players who have played a certain minimum number of games.

Then people will create accounts and "play" (create game and concede) the required minimum.

If people are signing up just to boost the prize payout, then make the prize payout dependent upon a certain minimum level of participation.

Yes, we are considering making a fix payout for leagues.

Easily defeated: No product for losers, and some certain minimal time requirement, such as a game lasting 5 or 10 minutes before it counts.

Sometimes you just kill your opponent on a move to 2nd site... should these games not count? And no, checking the progress of the game, and figuring out if a game was legit or not, is not an option.

How does that limit the exploit?

If someone creates fake accounts and "plays" against them in a league, the limit of number of games in a week he can win, and therefore get product for that, limits the damage it can do to the game economy.

No, people who play 40 games a month and are above-average players will be building their collections at a considerably faster rate. Those who are skilled and able to play all the time will quickly outstrip those who are less skilled, and cannot play as often. This gap will only increase as time goes on.

Yes, and that is what happens in every collectible card game, and I'm expecting this to happen, anything else would just seem weird and wrong. Not only that, but it's also unavoidable and the goal of the competitive game by itself.

[sgtdraino]

Second post in this thread you posted this question in, here is a direct link to the post:
http://lotrtcgwiki.com/forums/index.php/topic,7983.msg77873.html#msg77873

Thanks, checking it out now.

What about just allowing players to keep the cards they initially get, at the beginning of the league? That should roughly equate to the 50g price, yes?

Does it mean, that constructed leagues, where you don't get to keep any cards, the entry should be free?

Hmmm. Not necessarily free, since like you said you can get cards depending on how well and how often you play in the series. I could however see making the entry fee cheaper for constructed, or increasing the prize support.

Easily defeated: No product for losers, and some certain minimal time requirement, such as a game lasting 5 or 10 minutes before it counts.

Sometimes you just kill your opponent on a move to 2nd site... should these games not count?

Okay, how about a certain minimum number of cards played? Or perhaps an either/or trigger?

And no, checking the progress of the game, and figuring out if a game was legit or not, is not an option.

Oh yeah, WAY too much work.

If someone creates fake accounts and "plays" against them in a league, the limit of number of games in a week he can win, and therefore get product for that, limits the damage it can do to the game economy.

How about incorporating a diminishing returns thing? Maybe front load it so the first few games you win you get packs for, but the more games you play, you just get foils and singles for prizes? Random foils shouldn't really affect the economy much.

No, people who play 40 games a month and are above-average players will be building their collections at a considerably faster rate. Those who are skilled and able to play all the time will quickly outstrip those who are less skilled, and cannot play as often. This gap will only increase as time goes on.

Yes, and that is what happens in every collectible card game,[/quote]

No, IRL collection growth is limited by how much money people have, not by how much they play or how good they are at playing. Certainly there is still a gap, it's just caused by something different.

and I'm expecting this to happen, anything else would just seem weird and wrong.

So, you think it's a GOOD thing that a minority of players should be able to build their collections much faster than the majority?

Not only that, but it's also unavoidable and the goal of the competitive game by itself.

I think the game is at its best when the playing field is as level as it can be. Ideally that would mean that the majority of people would be able to increase their collections at about the same rate, and that even the "elite" wouldn't be able to increase their collections much faster than that. Law of diminishing returns.

[hsiale]

(I will reply to everything here, splitting discussion between two threads isn't very comfortable)

Every game available during the course of a month? How often do you expect your players to be on their computers, and not working at jobs or taking care of other real-life things?

A league is usually 40 games available during 36 days. This is barely over one game daily - is this so much commitment? A game takes usually 30 minutes. Of course things get harder if you want to play casual games as well - I've been on the receiving end of this lately, I think during last 3 months I've played just a few casual games, practically playing only sealed leagues (because sealed is my favourite format). If I preferred playing casually, I'd skip the leagues. And if someone has no time for even one game a day, then probably a league indeed is not the optimal way to increase collection size. On the other hand if you don't play leagues, in particular you don't play collector's leagues, so having a collection of strong cards is not so important.

That's great IF you have the time to play that many games, AND you actually have a halfway decent win-rate. Again, not really conducive to players who are new to the game, who are still learning.

Even playing 9 games each series and winning only one of them should give approx 12 booster packs as total prize support. Which is over twice as much as you can buy from merchant for 50G sign up fee.

The end result is that better players build their collections more, while players who aren't so good may not build their collections much at all. If anything, it seems like this would create more and more of a division for collected league play, as only the better players have a decent pool of cards to draw from.

With RL money taken out of the equation, I see just two things left that can be rewarded with cards - skill and time. So they have to be rewarded.

New players should probably stick to leagues that give everyone equal access to cards (majority of them do so, and probably once tournaments are introduced all leagues will use either "All Cards" or "Sealed Deck" format, with "My Cards" format available for tournaments together with "All Cards" and "Draft"). Those leagues, together with casual games, are great to learn the game. I feel a player completely new to the game will still need less time to get a top level deck than to become a highly skilled player. Of course there is a problem for good players who learned the game elsewhere - but those can perform in "Sealed" and "All Cards" events right from the start, allowing them to get competitive "My Cards" decks faster.

and it's going to be ages before my collection would be ready to join a collected format league

I'm not sure what "ages" means for you. I checked how much cards from two of my decks are worth (decks to use in casual play, not ones I have collected). One of them was Dwarves/Morcs deck, full of very expensive cards (blue ring, Durin III, 2x Ring of Fury, 3x Blood Runs Chill, 3x Dwarven Bracers, 4x Morgul Brute, 3x Cantea FTW, 2x Enquea LOM, Ithil Stone and so on). Even this deck costed a bit less that 1000 gold. Which means you can build it in less than 5 months even without playing a single league game, just collecting gold you get each week. But this is quite expensive deck. The other one, using Elven Telepathy/Roaming Sauron Orcs, costed below 600 gold, so it's possible to get it way faster.

your system is designed to reward above average players, while punishing average and below-average players. It also handicaps people who are simply not able to play in the league 40-some times per month. The long-term end result of such a system, is one where the best players also have the most cards, and will be able to shut out newer players or players who are still developing their skills. The only level playing field for those players would be a 50g sealed deck league where they don't get to keep their cards afterwards

Not the only one - there are also "All Cards" leagues and casual games. Players who can't play a 40 games league should not worry about being competitive in collector's environment anyway - as casual games always allow "All Cards". As I already wrote, with RL money out, only things that can be rewarded are time and skill. And those rewards are limited precisely to allow new players to catch up - not instantly, but gradually, together with their skill level increase.

How about incorporating a diminishing returns thing?

This is how I designed the system. There are 5 booster packs to get and they are available for wins #1, 3, 5, 8 and 10. Winning half of your games gives you 60% of the boosters.

I think the game is at its best when the playing field is as level as it can be. Ideally that would mean that the majority of people would be able to increase their collections at about the same rate, and that even the "elite" wouldn't be able to increase their collections much faster than that.

Such system is OK when all participants join at roughly the same time, which is not the case. I have joined Gemp during first beta tests in summer 2011 and played my first league 10 months ago. People joining now would never make up the difference if card getting pace was more or less constant for everyone. Now, if they are better than me, they get more cards and collection difference is becoming smaller.

For sealed deck, I think a participant should get product equal to what they spent to join, at a minimum.

BTW, how many boosters did you receive as overall sealed league prize? My guess would be two or three, adding three you got for single game wins, it seems that you actually got the sign up fee's worth in boosters, even playing approx half of the games and having win rate of 24%. I don't think a league should be a sure way of getting gold you paid back, as then everyone would have to sign up for every league available, but as you see, if you play at least some games, it's not hard to get your money back.

[sgtdraino]

A league is usually 40 games available during 36 days. This is barely over one game daily - is this so much commitment? A game takes usually 30 minutes.

Well, looking at my stats for the past month's King Sealed, it looks like I played a total of 16 games, with an Opp. Win % of 55.5%, total of 21 points, overall rank of 92. I played 5 games in Series 1 (Opp. Win % of 54.5%), 2 games in series 2 (55%), 6 games in series 3 (62.5%), and 3 games in Series 4 (46.7%). So, I played an average of 4 games per week within that particular league.

Of course things get harder if you want to play casual games as well

Which I do. To me, it gets a little monotonous playing only one format all the time for a whole month, especially in the relatively limited environment of a sealed deck scenario.

- I've been on the receiving end of this lately, I think during last 3 months I've played just a few casual games, practically playing only sealed leagues (because sealed is my favourite format).

How many league games per week do you play on average? Do you think that your activity is typical, or do you feel you are more active than the average player?

If I preferred playing casually, I'd skip the leagues. And if someone has no time for even one game a day, then probably a league indeed is not the optimal way to increase collection size. On the other hand if you don't play leagues, in particular you don't play collector's leagues, so having a collection of strong cards is not so important.

Eventually I would like to play in some collector's leagues. I just don't relish the prospect of waiting 5 months to be able to do that... and even then it depends on whether the format I invested my collecting in, is the one that happens to be supported by a league.

Even playing 9 games each series and winning only one of them should give approx 12 booster packs as total prize support. Which is over twice as much as you can buy from merchant for 50G sign up fee.

I don't think that's typical, though. In fact, looking over the data for the last King Sealed league, tossing out those who did not play any games, it looks like those who played, played an average of 4.7 games per series.

With RL money taken out of the equation, I see just two things left that can be rewarded with cards - skill and time. So they have to be rewarded.

Sure. But there are ways to reward skill and time without so dramatically increasing the collecting gap between those who have much, and those who have little.

I'm not sure what "ages" means for you.

I'd say that 5 months seems like a very long time to build one viable deck that is only legal for certain formats.

 I checked how much cards from two of my decks are worth (decks to use in casual play, not ones I have collected). One of them was Dwarves/Morcs deck, full of very expensive cards (blue ring, Durin III, 2x Ring of Fury, 3x Blood Runs Chill, 3x Dwarven Bracers, 4x Morgul Brute, 3x Cantea FTW, 2x Enquea LOM, Ithil Stone and so on). Even this deck costed a bit less that 1000 gold. Which means you can build it in less than 5 months even without playing a single league game, just collecting gold you get each week. But this is quite expensive deck. The other one, using Elven Telepathy/Roaming Sauron Orcs, costed below 600 gold, so it's possible to get it way faster.

your system is designed to reward above average players, while punishing average and below-average players. It also handicaps people who are simply not able to play in the league 40-some times per month. The long-term end result of such a system, is one where the best players also have the most cards, and will be able to shut out newer players or players who are still developing their skills. The only level playing field for those players would be a 50g sealed deck league where they don't get to keep their cards afterwards

Not the only one - there are also "All Cards" leagues and casual games.

True. Although a veteran player's superior knowledge of that large card pool will generally trump a newb who has access to the same pool.

Players who can't play a 40 games league should not worry about being competitive in collector's environment anyway

At the rate average players play, it seems like it's going to be a very long time indeed before the vast majority of us could be competitive in the collector's environment.

How about incorporating a diminishing returns thing?

This is how I designed the system. There are 5 booster packs to get and they are available for wins #1, 3, 5, 8 and 10. Winning half of your games gives you 60% of the boosters.[/quote]

What about front-loading that so that you get boosters for the first 5 wins, and individual cards for wins 6-10? That would enable the average 4.7%er to keep up with those who can play more often, product-wise. Otherwise, the system dramatically favors those who simply have a lot of time on their hands.

Such system is OK when all participants join at roughly the same time, which is not the case. I have joined Gemp during first beta tests in summer 2011 and played my first league 10 months ago. People joining now would never make up the difference if card getting pace was more or less constant for everyone. Now, if they are better than me, they get more cards and collection difference is becoming smaller.

But you play twice as often as they do. They would have to win twice as much as you do, just to keep up with the amount of product you're getting. That's because the current system favors those who can play the full 40 games, and from the data I analyzed, that is a minority by far.

I understand that things will never be totally equal, but I think it would be better to at least try to minimize how unequal things can be. I think we all agree on that point.

BTW, how many boosters did you receive as overall sealed league prize?

Sorry, I didn't keep up with that at the time. Maybe you can tell based on the data I provided?

I don't think a league should be a sure way of getting gold you paid back,

Maybe not. But I think it should be geared to at least give a slight profit to those who play at an average rate, with an average win percentage. Why as slight profit? Because it takes a lot more effort to play in a league, than to just go into the merchant and click on stuff. I think it's better for the Gemp community to encourage more league participation as well.

[bibfortuna25]

Here's the solution: play more often. Set aside more time to playing league games.

[CoS]

i'm with bib

the system is designed to have checks & balances otherwise the economy will collapse

So, obviously someone who has more time to grind leagues or fleece the AI merchant with trade ups will do better than someone who only plays on Saturday Morning.

Seriously, this is the same way it is in real life.

And unlike LotRO where people actually had to pay REAL $$$ to have ANY CARDS AT ALL to play with GEMP lets you play in all formats casually with ALL CARDS available to you.  Seriously, it can't get better than that... ever.  I know, i probably spent well over a $1,000 USD on LotRO. For GEMP my cash outlay has been about $50 for two boxes of Fellowship Draft Packs so I could give card lists to MarcinS.  Drafting on GEMP will be the Cherry on the TOP of one of the premium free CCG online sites!

[ramolnar]

I have the Fellowship Draft Pack and Towers Draft Pack lists, deconstructed from back in the day. I hope they're the same as those from CoS!
PM me if you want them.

[hsiale]

The multipath sealed league project is slowly taking shape. I hope to have all decks needed ready next week so that there's enough time to add them to the server.

I plan to make 9 decks, so that 3 are available to choose from each of the first 3 series. In each triple one deck will use FotR site path, one will use TTT and one will use King.

Here's one deck I have ready now. It features Rohan/Gondor fellowship and mixed Orcs/Shelob shadow. What do you think about this one?

Ring-bearer 2C102 • Frodo, Reluctant Adventurer

The One Ring 1C2 • The One Ring, The Ruling Ring

Adventure Deck
1 6U116 Westfold
2 4U333 Plains of Rohan Camp
3 4U339 Stables
4 4U344 Westemnet Hills
5 4U350 Hornburg Courtyard
6 4U353 Great Hall
7 5U118 Hornburg Wall
8 4U359 Wizard's Vale
9 4U363 Palantir Chamber

Free Peoples Draw Deck
2x 7C86 • Denethor, Wizened Steward
2x 1P365 • Aragorn, King in Exile
2x 4C266 • Eomer, Sister-son of Theoden
2x 7C229 • Eowyn, Restless Maiden
1x 4C117 • Faramir, Son of Denethor
1x 1U97 • Boromir, Son of Denethor
1x 4U285 • Leod, Westfold Herdsman
1x 4U295 • Weland, Smith of the Riddermark
1x 4C281 • Hlafwine, Village Farmhand
1x 4C277 • Guma, Plains Farmer
2x 4C287 Rider's Mount
1x 4C283 Horse of Rohan
1x 4U263 • Brego
1x 4U268 • Eomer's Spear
1x 1U112 • Ranger's Sword
2x 1C299 Hobbit Sword
1x 8U42 A Path Appointed
1x 8U86 Doom Drove Them
1x 6C97 • We Left None Alive
3x 4U282 An Honorable Charge
2x 4U123 Hard Choice
Free Peoples Total 30

Shadow Draw Deck
2x 8U23 Larder
2x 8C28 Spider Poison
2x 8C30 Web
3x 8C26 • Shelob, Last Child of Ungoliant
1x 5C24 • Gollum, Nasty Treacherous Creature
1x 6C40 • Gollum, Old Villain
1x 7C59 • Gollum, Vile Creature
1x 10C24 • Unabated in Malice
1x 10U22 Reclaim the Precious
1x 5C30 We Must Have It
1x 7C75 Sweeter Meats
2x 3U58 Isengard Servant
3x 1C176 Goblin Marksman
2x 2C90 Orc Taskmaster
2x 8U97 Gorgoroth Breaker
1x 1U260 The Number Must Be Few
2x 8C75 Morgul Creeper
2x 10C55 Cirith Ungol Soldier
Shadow Total 30

[bibfortuna25]

I was thinking that a no-rares league might be a good idea to try. We could start with fellowship block for the first series, then Tower standard, then movie block.

[Nitsuj]

The multipath sealed league project is slowly taking shape. I hope to have all decks needed ready next week so that there's enough time to add them to the server.

I plan to make 9 decks, so that 3 are available to choose from each of the first 3 series. In each triple one deck will use FotR site path, one will use TTT and one will use King.

Here's one deck I have ready now. It features Rohan/Gondor fellowship and mixed Orcs/Shelob shadow. What do you think about this one?

Ring-bearer 2C102 • Frodo, Reluctant Adventurer

The One Ring 1C2 • The One Ring, The Ruling Ring

Adventure Deck
1 6U116 Westfold
2 4U333 Plains of Rohan Camp
3 4U339 Stables
4 4U344 Westemnet Hills
5 4U350 Hornburg Courtyard
6 4U353 Great Hall
7 5U118 Hornburg Wall
8 4U359 Wizard's Vale
9 4U363 Palantir Chamber

Free Peoples Draw Deck
2x 7C86 • Denethor, Wizened Steward
2x 1P365 • Aragorn, King in Exile
2x 4C266 • Eomer, Sister-son of Theoden
2x 7C229 • Eowyn, Restless Maiden
1x 4C117 • Faramir, Son of Denethor
1x 1U97 • Boromir, Son of Denethor
1x 4U285 • Leod, Westfold Herdsman
1x 4U295 • Weland, Smith of the Riddermark
1x 4C281 • Hlafwine, Village Farmhand
1x 4C277 • Guma, Plains Farmer
2x 4C287 Rider's Mount
1x 4C283 Horse of Rohan
1x 4U263 • Brego
1x 4U268 • Eomer's Spear
1x 1U112 • Ranger's Sword
2x 1C299 Hobbit Sword
1x 8U42 A Path Appointed
1x 8U86 Doom Drove Them
1x 6C97 • We Left None Alive
3x 4U282 An Honorable Charge
2x 4U123 Hard Choice
Free Peoples Total 30

Shadow Draw Deck
2x 8U23 Larder
2x 8C28 Spider Poison
1x 8C30 Web
3x 8C26 • Shelob, Last Child of Ungoliant
1x 5C24 • Gollum, Nasty Treacherous Creature
1x 6C40 • Gollum, Old Villain
1x 7C59 • Gollum, Vile Creature
1x 10C24 • Unabated in Malice
1x 10U22 Reclaim the Precious
2x 5C30 We Must Have It
1x 7C75 Sweeter Meats
2x 3U58 Isengard Servant
3x 1C176 Goblin Marksman
2x 2C90 Orc Taskmaster
2x 8U97 Gorgoroth Breaker
1x 1U260 The Number Must Be Few
2x 8C75 Morgul Creeper
2x 10C55 Cirith Ungol Soldier
Shadow Total 30

seems wrong to me to only have one copy of web in the deck.  If shadow lucks into getting it early, the tempo of the game is changed then if web is buried in their deck.  For a more consistent play experience, I think it should have at least 2 webs.

[hsiale]

Shelob deck:
+1 Web
-1 We Must Have It

Was thinking about 3rd Web, but that could have made the deck to reliable. There is a reason why the shadow side from Sam Mount Doom starter has only two copies of Rank and File.

One more deck I made is Rohandalf/Easterlings on King sitepath. Those two will most probably be available in the same week, as otherwise I feel having both could turn out too good.

Ring-bearer 0P67 • Frodo, Mr. Underhill
The One Ring 1C2 • The One Ring, The Ruling Ring

Adventure Deck
1 7U330 Edoras Hall
2 7U337 West Road
3 7U339 Hall of the Kings
4 10U118 Pelennor Prairie
5 7U345 Pelennor Flat
6 7U348 Minas Tirith Fourth Circle
7 7U355 Ruined Capitol
8 7U356 Cross Roads
9 7U363 Slag Mounds

Free Peoples Draw Deck
2x 4C270 • Eowyn, Lady of Rohan
1x 8C87 • Eomer, Keeper of Oaths
2x 7U254 • Theoden, Leader of Spears
1x 7U224 • Elfhelm, Marshal of Rohan
1x 7C225 Elite Rider
3x 4C90 • Gandalf, The White Wizard
2x 1C299 Hobbit Sword
1x 1C304 Noble Intentions
2x 4C102 Task Was Not Done
2x 4C105 Under the Living Earth
2x 7U42 King's Advisor
3x 7C40 Have Patience
1x 10C16 Gathering Wind
1x 4U280 • Herugrim
1x 4U263 • Brego
2x 4C291 Sword of Rohan
2x 7U231 Fey He Seemed
Free Peoples Total 30

Shadow Draw Deck
3x 4C228 Easterling Lieutenant
3x 4C226 Easterling Guard
2x 4C224 Easterling Axeman
2x 4C227 Easterling Infantry
3x 10C41 • Easterling Pillager
2x 7C142 Easterling Blademaster
2x 7C141 Easterling Attacker
2x 7C140 Easterling Assailant
2x 7C139 Easterling Aggressor
2x 6U79 Easterling Polearm
2x 4C239 Men of Rhun
2x 4C235 Gathering to the Summons
1x 4C260 Whirling Strike
2x 7C173 War Towers
Shadow Total 30

[hsiale]

And the third deck: FotR block sitepath, archery with Uruk trackers.

It's quite likely that those 3 will be week 1 choices. So if you see any balance issues between them, please let me know. And also any other comments are welcome

I went a bit out of Movie block with this deck. Arwen (and Frodo in the previous deck) are here because I want those promos to see some play (I'm thinking about replacing The White Wizard with Gandalf, Stormcrow as well, what's your opinion on this?). I also added Rumil because there are not many good non-rare companions in Movie block sets.

Ring-bearer 10P121 • Frodo, Resolute Hobbit
The One Ring 1C2 • The One Ring, The Ruling Ring

Adventure Deck
1 1U324 The Prancing Pony
2 1U332 Midgewater Marshes
3 3U119 House of Elrond
4 2C119 Hollin
5 1C349 The Bridge of Khazad-dum
6 1U352 Lothlorien Woods
7 3C118 The Great River
8 1U358 Pillars of the Kings
9 1U361 Slopes of Amon Hen

Free Peoples Draw Deck
1x 0P63 • Arwen, Maiden of Rivendell
2x 1U48 • Haldir, Elf of the Golden Wood
2x 8C10 • Legolas, Elven Stalwart
2x 10U4 • Aegnor, Elven Escort
1x 12C22 • Rumil, Brother of Haldir
1x 3U10 • Calaglin, Elf of Lorien
1x 3U12 • Dinendal, Silent Scout
1x 1U31 • Asfaloth
3x 1C41 Elven Bow
3x 4C87 Valor
3x 4C109 • Aragorn, Heir of Elendil
2x 1U94 Athelas
1x 7U93 Footman's Armor
1x 1U112 • Ranger's Sword
1x 1C102 Dagger Strike
2x 4C115 Defend It and Hope
1x 1C286 Bounder
2x 4C306 Hobbit Sword
Free Peoples Total 30

Shadow Draw Deck
3x 2C47 Uruk Scout
2x 4R186 Uruk Follower
2x 4C187 Uruk Foot Soldier
3x 4C189 Uruk Plains Runner
3x 4C193 Uruk Runner
2x 4U194 Uruk Searcher
3x 4C195 Uruk Seeker
2x 3C69 • Saruman, Servant of the Eye
2x 4C196 Uruk Spear
3x 4U159 Many Riddles
2x 3C63 One of You Must Do This
2x 4C156 Kill Them Now
1x 1U231 • Ulaire Enquea, Lieutenant of Morgul
Shadow Total 30

[bibfortuna25]

Any idea when we will get a Collectors league again? And what format it will be when it does start? That would make it easier to choose which packs to take when league games are won.