BrownDog Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 16 minutes ago, Killax said: Could you guys explain me how Lightseekers is unique amongst other cardgames and such. I'm still somewhat on the fence for this. Thanks in advance! I would suggest watching the How to Play video on their site, it's actually pretty interesting, as you don't seem to play monsters, you have your 'Hero' card and the rest of your deck is filled with actions and effects, from what little I've seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOtherJosh Posted March 24, 2018 Share Posted March 24, 2018 On 3/21/2018 at 6:11 AM, Killax said: I just love how it all basically went full circle But that topic is neither here nor there offcourse. However what I mean by it is: - First World of Warcraft was intended to be a PC game designed for Games Workshop with Warhammer Fantasy in mind. - Games Workshop refused it, WoW became it's own thing. - Thanks to the decline of WoW online mmorpg Heartstone came to life, as a cardgame that really conquered the world more or less. - Many Heartstone like games appear. - Games Workshop now embraces the compagny who got big with a Heartstone-like game. ... Actually ... Hearthstone was originally a physical TCG that “failed” for two CCG companies... ”World of Warcraft: The TCG” that was released in 2005 by Upper Deck. They had both PvP and multi-player “narrative dungeon/raid” coop decks. They Lost the License in 2010 and it flipped over to Cryptozoic. It then was killed off in physical format in 2013. Blizzard rebuilt the physical CG into a digital CG ... by the name of Hearthstone which released in 2014. Same premise, same mechanics, many of the same cards. My concern is that CGs tend to live or die based on community and folks willing to spend cash on packs of cards. At typically $2.99 to $3.99 (usd) a physical pack they’re not inexpensive ... having purchased well over ... well ... lots of cards for the WoW CG in yesteryears they’re heavily biased into a “Pay to Win” model. Buy enough card packs and you’ll get the good cards... but you often have to get loads of cards and packs to get there .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killax Posted March 25, 2018 Share Posted March 25, 2018 20 hours ago, TheOtherJosh said: Actually ... Hearthstone was originally a physical TCG that “failed” for two CCG companies... ”World of Warcraft: The TCG” that was released in 2005 by Upper Deck. They had both PvP and multi-player “narrative dungeon/raid” coop decks. They Lost the License in 2010 and it flipped over to Cryptozoic. It then was killed off in physical format in 2013. Blizzard rebuilt the physical CG into a digital CG ... by the name of Hearthstone which released in 2014. Same premise, same mechanics, many of the same cards. My concern is that CGs tend to live or die based on community and folks willing to spend cash on packs of cards. At typically $2.99 to $3.99 (usd) a physical pack they’re not inexpensive ... having purchased well over ... well ... lots of cards for the WoW CG in yesteryears they’re heavily biased into a “Pay to Win” model. Buy enough card packs and you’ll get the good cards... but you often have to get loads of cards and packs to get there .... Do you feel a licenced TCG failed if it had a 8 year run but wasn't made by Blizzard directly? Because I dont. Though loved the game. I agree with you on the pay to win model, it's what drives it. Will be the case here also largely. Having said that for me the thing is really that we need to see more. I think AoS could translate well to a CG but less so if it's the Lightseeker engine with AoS picturs. To me that's just bound to feel like Lightseeker and not be something unique enough. If there was a card system Id love to see with AoS it would actually be more like the Berserk cardgame system. But that's neither here nor there. I'm open to it, we'll see Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOtherJosh Posted March 25, 2018 Share Posted March 25, 2018 2 hours ago, Killax said: Do you feel a licenced TCG failed if it had a 8 year run but wasn't made by Blizzard directly? Because I dont. Though loved the game. No ... I (and the missus) both enjoyed playing the game. I recall that many of the folks who were playing with at the time had never played WoW... and had absolutely no interest in doing so, even after having played the CG. We played because we enjoyed the game but wanted to get away from the screen. (We had tried MtG.) While there were a number of folks who came in and played, many of them were aiming for the regional and national events where there was actual money and prizes to be had for winning. A bunch of folks who had started, trailed off to play other games because the vendors were offering better prizes for playing ... and Blizzard had money for prizes ... I saw a noted drop-off locally as the 'end times' happened, and folks were dealing with catching up to the current card meta. Cards started being discounted fairly seriously. Perhaps, things are different now? The current hearthstone situation is that there is extremely active support by the vendor ... who owns the product. Indirectly we're looking at the situation with shadespire... where the vendor is directly involved ... and isn't merely a 3rd party with a licensing contract subject to another companies plans an objectives. And subject to the CG vendor keeping their support available. I'm interested in seeing how it goes ... but many of the other tie-ins have been pulled back... so I'm perhaps slightly hesitant. With models, at the end of the day I have a 3D representation on the board ... even if someone isn't supporting the product directly anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killax Posted March 26, 2018 Share Posted March 26, 2018 11 hours ago, TheOtherJosh said: With models, at the end of the day I have a 3D representation on the board ... even if someone isn't supporting the product directly anymore. I largely agree. This is also why I think cardgames will always feel a bit so/so for Games Workshop. It's interesting at the same time but Games Workshop is really known for their miniatures. I do think that boardgames are excellent for them to produce, a habit they have been going through with since 2015 but I also think that Shadepire is succes as it's essentially an Arena game that Games Workshop never had before. Having said that, I think the FFG style of obtaining cards for the game is a bit so/so. Games Workshop doesn't have to work like that and ultimately I think FFG products are cool but that marketing design isn't really a good one if you want player groups to grow. GW could redeem that the moment they would bring out a cardset that would have all the Neutral cards however, so you can simply have the Core Set, your favourite Warband and that set. Instead of needing to get them all, FFG style. What I just hope is that the cardgame will emulate what is Age of Sigmar and I have my doubts about that being the case so far. I believe that Age of Sigmar's strongest design concept is simple rules and board placement making it tactically as deep as you want to go without being difficult to explain in theory. Still not counting out the game, just interested in what GW thinks it would add to their current range and game set up. I also am sometimes missing the cross synergy plans for Games Workshop's products. This, I feel, is a missed chance for Shadespire also. I recall I read somewhere that initially the units from Shadespire where mend to be unit upgrade options. Why they stepped out of that idea I really don't know. All Shadespire units would have been relevant if they where capable to be added to a regular unit of their kind... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.