Response to Lucas Licensing's Response

I?m in the same boat. I stopped playing after cloud city and didn?t even bother with Endor. By that time, I had grown weary of the game mechanics. It was particularly painful during the Degobah train luke decks where the LS would just train luke for this massive drain on Degobah all game long..and the DS had no way to show up there and frag em. BAH. Yes there were counters, so then you build your deck around countering the degobah training deck..and your opponent shows up with say?a Hoth deck. Nice.

I?ve played allot of CCG?s?Magic, BattleTech, L5R, Vampire, Starwars, YJ, JK, star trek, Aliens vs predator, dune and some weird ones in-between (Blood fist or something like that?game was based on feng shue sites for resources?

The best games I?ve played came from WOTC. Their mechanics are stronger, most of their games adapt to multi player very nicely, and I never got burned with Ultra-Rare foil embossed nonsense.

Magic became a mess, so I stopped. SWCCG became a mess so I stopped. L5R was a huge mess, but the game was tooo damn good. Shame it died. Same with BattleTech.

I will be purchasing WOTC?s new StarWars game. I?m sure it will be fun, challenging, and well created.

 

I think one of the key points of Mr. Roffman's reply was:

"..every product decision is motivated first and foremost by whether it will result in a better experience for the fans of Star Wars."

The thing that caught my eye is that he didn't say "fans of the Star Wars: CCG".

Looking at this I would think that Lucas was interested in a game that was going to appeal to more Star Wars fans than just the current Decipher player base.

As Artie-Deco pointed out, we're quick to forget that two other games were created to try and entice more Star Wars fans to play ccgs - yj and jk - but in the end those two games did not accomplish what they were intended to.

In my opinion, when I look at all the tcgs out there that are no longer in print, I think it is because of the following reason -
a) they became too complex for new people to play so they failed to grow as older players stopped playing

b) the organized play system for those games were very lack-luster either due to poor company support or a game mechanic that was not condusive to tournament play

c) they just failed to make money, and don't kid yourself, if a game doesn't make money its not going to survive

Anyway... I'm glad to see Lucasfilm speak out and be able to talk to us because honestly, they don't need to say diddly squat, but they seem to always be open and eager to respond to fan's outcries.

my 2 cents

- HG

 

If the new game is multiplayer, then it is already a 1000% improvement.

 

DL, you think that just because there weren't official rules for SWCCG for multiplayer that people didn't play that way?
I know I did, I have played anywhere from 2v2 to 5v1. Not that hard to come up with some simple rules for multiplay. It didn't take WOTC to do that, Decipher could of put out "official" rules for multiplayer any time, without truly having to make any major changes.

 

it wasn't designed for multiplayer. That would have just been one more set of cumbersome rules and errata just to compensate.

 

Hmmmm, something tells me Darth that you're one of those people who would be a Yankees fan because they've won 26 World Series.

You sure do have a lot of "Decipher hatin'" to pass around, but you don't back up anything you say with good solid reasons. "What he said" doesn't count in my book. At least Artie and AD and several other critics have spelled out in no uncertain terms what they didn't like. All you harp on is how inconvenient the rules are for you. Which is all well and good, but your "solution" is that a CCG should have this and have that. Bottomline is, much of what you think a CCG should be is pretty unrealistic. Because if a CCG was as uniformed as you stated, it would get stale fast and it would have die with the second expansion. My sincere suggestion to you is that you think outside the WOTC implant and do some research into what a CCG is, how the industry works, etc. I think that it would really help you flesh out in your head what you truly feel is wrong with D's Star Wars game...because wotc should be just as guilty by your standards as Decipher is.

 

AD spelled out exactly what I have been having so much trouble expressing what I didn't like perfectly well. Loquaciously said exactly what I had trouble spitting out. I hate the Yankees.

 

The Yankees thing was just an example.

Anyway, I still think that what many of D's critics (AND LucasFilm for that matter) wanted for the SWCCG was pretty unrealistic. Some of it is prety unrealistic for ANY game. And I believe this comes from players (and LL) being uneducated in the World of the Customizable/Tradable Card Game.

In some ways I hope that LL gives wotc a lot more leeway with their game. 'Cause if they do then we will all know that LL was the reason behind a vast majority of the "negatives" that began to surround the card game. And if LL doesn't (in hopes to hide the above) then it won't be six months before people will be complaining about the same things they complained about with D's game. And if they don't complain it'll only prove the bias and what hypocrites D's critics apparently are.

 

I totally agree, people need to calm down and realize that sure, there were some problems with D, just like there will be with WOTC, but some of the problems the people had were unrealistic in terms of being able to change them. DL, I wouldn't talk about the multiplayer aspect, because if you knew a lot about the game (which you obviously don't) you would realize that eratta would not be needed, and hardly any changes (if any at all) would be needed to sumpliment a small set of rules added. This may be one of the ideas this players commitee can impliment (hopefully.) Also, one of the main reasons (IMO) D released JK and/or YJ was because of the complexity of SWCCG. SWCCG, is known for its complexity, and has always been the most complex. If you don't like complex games, or your mind simply can't handle them, there were other alternatives. However, the license effected those too, so don't go whining about just SWCCG, because there were other alternatives, one being that if you don't like the game that much, be quiet and don't play it. Expressing your dislike for a few things that D did, or something about SWCCG is fine, but saying practicly every aspect about the game and company sucks, is uneccessary and unwanted. I agree, there were some bad aspects of the company, and the way it handled the game, and if you didn't like a single thing about it, why did you bother playing it in the first place? This forum is for people that PLAY the game and want to discuss aspects of the game, and yes in recent events how D could of improved or how it possibly get the license back, not people that want to flame D and all of its products with no reasons to back it up.

 

My favorite game was Spellfire. Wizards pretty much killed that when they purchased TSR since it competed directly with MTG. Spellfire was fast, fun, and easy and any additions or rules changes followed the smae basic set up of the game when it was established.
I don't hate Wizards for cancelling my favorite game.

 

Wow those short response always respond to everything that was menchioned, woo.. [/sarcasm]

 

I'm going to try and get some of the Wizards R&D guys over here to help people get over their irrational fears of trying something new.

 

I think you are misunderstanding what people are saying, Darth. Yes, players are saying they won't play the game out of protest, but many more are saying they FINANCIALLY cannot support another Star Wars game even if they wanted to.

The crux of this whole issue is that the majority of the SWCCG community feels extremely sleighted that their investment of time and money was not given nearly the consideration by LL that it should have been given. And I say they are right to feel sleighted.

There is never anything wrong with trying new things when they are neccessary. By LL opting to NOT use Decipher's game mechanics, most players feel that a change was unneccessary--which should speak volumes as to what the majority of gamers feel about the game mechanics of the SWCCG.

 

Yes loss of the licence made me mad. The game had it's problems, but was a good game. I do feel cheated by both lucas film and decipher. Decipher made the move by trying to squeeze every last bit of $ from you in the end. They released more sets this year then they ever did. They were just trying to make as much money as they could before the end. They must have known for at LEAST 6 months that they were losing the licence. What was it 3 sets released in that time? What really annoys me in all of this is that people think that decipher is the victim. They screwed us too. I can't say I'll play the new game ( I am feeling pretty burnt ) I'll have to see what it's like. WoTC has big shoes to fill as far as the appearance/gameplay goes.

 

To put it simply: Darth Ludricous, you are a complete and total idiot and are embarrassing your self with your comments. Based on your remarks with poor grammar, and spelling, it appears that you have the mentality of a 10 year old. I insist that you read this.

Where do you live?
In the middle of Nebraska 20 miles from another person, where you gaming store is lucky to see 2 customers a year.

Decipher's SW:CCG which I have been playing since Day One and have invested thousands of dollars in is a great game. Wizards is going to eat up the Star Wars license and people will only buy it because of it's brand name. People have been playing SW:CCG for SIX YEARS. If it had been as complicated and terrible as you have stated, people would not have continued to purchase the cards or play the game. People may have bought SW:CCG because it was Star Wars, but most that I know play because it is a great game that has depth and wonderful game design and mechanics. The game being Star Wars is just a bonus for me.

It seems that your experience with Wizards killing the ccg that you loved would have taught you that lesson. Apparently not. Has Wizards released countless CCGs, and none have been successful since Magic, which was released many years ago. Most if not all of their other games are what I would describe as 'fad games' such as Pokemon, Harry Potter, etc. which are bought because of their label as opposed to their gameplay value. I would bet that at least half of the people that actively collect pokemon do not play the game on a regular basis.

This is the future of Star Wars TCG unfortunately. Death after a few expansions aimed at simple-minded 8-12 year olds such as yourself. This was a brilliant decision by Lucasfilm, they will in fact make more money because spoiled kids will beg their parents to buy cards, and they will. It's too bad that their plan is short-sighted. The game will be dead within a year and cards will stop being produced (or will be seldom bought) within 2 years even with the release of the new Star Wars Film.

RedV
red5@san.rr.com

 

No need for insults, red v. Insults, personal attacks, and name calling are for people who have lost all other options in an argument and so must attack the arguer. I'm this close to banning you so don't let me see you address myself or anyone else that way again. Understood?

I played the Decipher game from day one as well and was especially active at the message boards they had over there. I did spend a lot of money on it. At least $200 which is quite substantial for the starving college student I was at the time. I quit after Dagobah because I was fed up with the game(not to mention the number of cards per pack was reduced by 3?) I like to think I'm not an idiot for not spending thousands of dollars on a game that was destined to die. I'd sell every one of the cards right now too, even the main heroes and ships, but unfortunately they are barely worth the paper they are printed on and no hobby shops are buying.

 

DL, I am not name calling, but rather classifying you. See definition below:

idiot n : a person of subnormal intelligence

It seems that you using your 'power' to ban me would be even more of a last result as it would not allow others such as myself to express their opinions. It would show that you had no other choice, but to censor other opinions. Even more admitting that I am correct, and you are not. And don't even bother wasting your time as I have a rotating IP address that is impossible to ban. Please give it a try, you won't see the end of this debate.

Well, now that that is out of the way, let me get to my response,

You apparently have been misinformed, the game has changed greatly since Dagobah. The reduction of cards also came with a reduction of price per pack. I was rather pleased of that change as it ment that I got more rares for my money (even though that was the worst set in my opinion.) And with 'only' $200 invested, I did a bit of math and see that you could have only bought about 80 packs of cards assuming 2.50 a pack which is quite conservative. I don't see how you could have had an accurate feel for the game as that is only 20 packs per expansion, leaving you with way less than half the rares of each set.

Every card game will die. It isn't about the end result, but the fun you have playing it while it lasts. I have personally had great experiences at the DPC in Vegas, multiple cons including D-Con last year.

Luckily, I have been able to sell boxes and singles through the internet and at local tourney. I have at least broken even on the game, with a large collection to show as well, so money is not an issue for me, though it was a bit of a gamble.

If you had known of the current tourney scene (at least a few months ago), you would notice that cards from Dagobah and before are not used as much as other sets. That is the reason that they are not worth much... I guess that's what happens if something is useless. You have to use it while it's useful. Too bad all Lucas cares about is his profit, not the people who have good times such as myself, and you could have too...

I don't know of many people that start playing a game thinking they can profit from it, and you are right in the sense that the cards are barely worth the paper they are printed on. It's silly to think that a few months ago some one paid $200 for a Maul with Saber Tourney Foil which is just a small piece of card stock with some ink and foil coating on it. How much does it cost Decipher to produce? I'd have to say a buck at most. It's the same thing with money, ya know? I read somewhere that a $100 bill cost the gov't less than 5 cents to make. Imagine that, you can press a button on a machine and make $99.95 profit each time it prints out a bill. It all comes down to the eye of the beholder. You think your cards are worthless, then they are. Give them to someone who would appreciate them. Give them to bums who have no homes or money or food, and they can use them as fire wood.

I'm wondering why you are even at this board 5 years after you stopped playing the game. Dagobah came out in '97 I believe.

It also seems that your thoughts are very contradictive. First you say that you want a simple and fast game such as spellfire, then you go on and say you want a multiplayer game with the new SWTCG. Wouldn't that just go and make the game complicated... exactly what you were trying to avoid?
Also, every CCG must have rules sheets and erratas. If there weren't rules supplements (not books as you stated, I hardly call 1 page a book) the game would never change. You may as well go play a board game or something. The first C in CCG is Customizable. The game is ment to evolve. I have yet to see a successful card game that plays exactly they way it did when it was released. Erratta's are nessary to improve gameplaying experience. It is not fun to play against abusive decks like Operatives, Asteroid Sanc, none of which you probably have played against.

I also would like to comme

 

I have been reading and can totally see both sides of the story here. DL's points are valid, as are the rest of you. I tried playing the SWCCG, It was my first attempt at ANY ccg besides MTG. I read the rulebook and tried to understand it. Yes it was complex, yes it sounded cool. The point is... Was it TOO complex? I mean, I was lost halfway through the book. I went back to the card store and asked the guy what was up and he said that I had to have certain decks to play with other people. I had a Death Star II deck. So it would've been pointless to get a few Jabba's Palace boosters to go along with The DSII starter right? Well then what's the point? Does it mean we had to buy a sufficient amount of cards from each set to play it? If not, then it's obviously my ignorance to the game. I only own that one deck. I contemplated buying more but the game was just too akward for me. I often wondered about compatability of the sets. "do Dagobah cards work well with Endor cards?" etc. From what people had told me, the answer was no. When the new game comes out, i WILL be a little reluctant to go buy it and stuff but hell, it'll be a new game and everyone will pretty much be on the same page, which is going to be a lot cooler. Will it be the next MTG or LOTR? definitely not. There barely is support for SWCCG as it is, and to create a new game? Who is going to play another SW game after YJ and JK? (YJ is my favorite since it's so damn easy ) I will definitely try it out and see how it is. Decipher did a relatively good job with the original swccg. I am sad that YJ is no more though. I actually liked collecting those cards. We're going to have to just wait and see what happens with the new set. If it's fun and not too damn difficult, more people will play. More people playing is enough for me to invest in it. I really wanted to learn how to play SWCCG... only problem... No one around here plays it. And no I don't live in the middle of nowhere, no i don't live in some small town. I live in Denver. I just couldn't find people that played the damn thing. I wish more people played it. Then I would've known how to play the game and therefore would've been mad about the whole WOTC thing. I like MTG, it's simple but still challenging. I hope the new game is something like that

 

Red84, you're being disingenuous regarding the "small" number of errata. The fact is many "clarifications" would have been considered errata if they had required the card to be reworded. That's why Luke Seeker is an errata and Han Seeker is a clarification (just to pick a simple example).

The number of clarifications is staggering, and impact the player just as much as an errata.

For example, Carbonite Chamber Console has been clarified from "...during your turn, you may use 1 force to search your reserve deck, take one Ugnaught, Prepare the Chamber or Carbon-Freezing into hand and reshuffle" to "...once during each of your turns...." This "clarification" was made because of the new rule that says, "When a card ... allows you to perform an
action during a particular time frame ... and the context indicates that the action is singular (typically by use of the word ?one,? ?a? or ?an?), then you may
perform that action only once during that time frame." Bottom line though, Carbonite Chamber Console was changed so that the action in its game text can only be performed once per turn, not multiple times.

The glossary has 142 pages. The glossary supplement has 24. That's 166 pages of errata and "near-errata" (clarifications).

That's a lot.

 

I also think that you're forgetting that many of those "near-errata" are simple word changes or "upgrades". Things like changing "any starship he pilots" to "anything he pilots" or making weapons reference "defense value". That stuff is hardly "required reading" since once you know one, you know them all.

Imo, Players ARE required to know errata. Mainly because only very popular cards are usually errata-ed. And where D COULD HAVE errata-ed a hell of alot more stuff, they just assumed fix it with another card (i.e. Nabrun/Elis & Insurrection/IAO) so that players wouldn't HAVE to memorize an errata sheet.

As I've said over and over, errata and clarifications are natures of the CCG beast, BUT the number can be controlled and Decipher proved that. In fact, I think that if D's idea had been approved to make the SWCCG 2nd Ed. then the majority of the Glossary would have been moot since the cards would have been reprinted with the updated gametexts and errata.

 

That's my point, Red. Changing "any starship he pilots" to "anything he pilots" would have been an errata, except that there was a RULE change saying any card that says "any starship" now means "anything". Instead of multiple "errata", they make one rule change and multiple "clarifications". Bottom line is the same: you have a card whose game text can not be trusted.

Don't misinterpret my intention. The number of clarifications/errata are annoying, but I agree with you that that's the way CCGs go. Designers don't plan ahead, or (most likely) they desire a new design element which complicates previous elements ... or they simply need to fix an element that is broken.

 

Red-V, I'm giving you a 48 hour ban for flaming me and disrespecting the forum rules. I gave you a second chance and I let you have your say and you continued to flame. If I'm not around to lift the ban Saturday afternoon, ask Josh (Red84) to do it.

I think what the Decipher designers lacked was complete foresight. It seemed to me that each expansion was a completely different game using cards all with the same layout. Rather than designing the game loosely to seamlessly integrate new changes and keep every card useful and playable in any deck, against any deck, the designers used the expansions to counter abused mistakes they made in previous expansions and made the expansions mostly only playable against the same expansion.
And what was up with Dark Side Lando. Just because loud darkside deck users want something doesn't mean it should happen. He always had a heart of gold.

Anyway, I stopped in the comic shop today and decided to aak the local CCG guru his thoughts. He's played every game imaginable because of free demos he gets from the vendors. Basically, he said that it appears that LotR will be the first Decipher CCG he might stick with. He was genuinely happy about the Change to Wizards despite the losses his shop will likely incur when they are forced to blow out the Decipher game. His criticism was pretty much the same as what Artie-Deco has been saying. Too complicated, too many rules changes etc etc. Anyway, there was a 4 foot section of wall directly behind him filled with shelves of expannsion packs and starter decks. I can't imagine it will be fun marking all that down.

 

So an admin gets called an idiot and the caller gets a ban (that's fine.)

..Then we get called all types of things and the caller doesn't get as much as a slap on the wrist. Heh.

 

back to the financial reasons.

I don't understand this complaint. With all the expansions that Decipher put out, I am willing to bet that there are hundreds, if not thousands of cards some of you own that you will never use again. And each time a new expansion comes out, there are even more cards that players have but will never use again.
Exit Decipher stage left, enter Wizards:
hundreds, perhaps thousands of cards that may never be used again (certainly not with the new game) replaced by cards used for this new game. As Wizards releases expansion sets, the cycle begins anew.

 

Sure, valid point, but it's missing one thing.

"perhaps thousands of cards that may never be used again (certainly not with the new game) replaced by cards used for this new game. As Wizards releases expansion sets, the cycle begins anew. " The cycle of not using cards begins anew, yes. There is no card game in existence that you use all of your cards, or that cards are always useable, except for LOTR possibly, which is made by who? Certainly not WOTC.