Why not make a card game that is solo, co-op, and pvp. Just saying.

Maggotbrain said:

Because it would ultimately prove overly complicated and require extra cards then either game alone. 

It could be done. I have a way in mind that would allow the card text to allow either Solo, Co-op, or PvP. It would be hard to do, but I think it would be very good in the end.

 yea it would take some extra cards but thats what an lcg is all about. 

Maggotbrain said:

Except extra cards would cost more money, extra playtesting, and be all around more complicated.

You now have a game that costs more to buy, costs more to make, and would likely alienate players by being to involved.  Now does any of that seem like a good idea when trying to make a game to turn a profit?

Now I know you will say well FFG is alienating players by not making it Co-op.  And yes that is going to happen, but clearly they see PvP as the more wanted format.  Maybe their LotR vs AGoT numbers had something to do with the choice.  But ultimately making the game to cover both makes very little sense, fiscally or design wise.

Especially since they could make an altogether separate game with a cooperative setup. Not only would this satisfy both the PvP camp and the co-op camp, but there would also be players who'd end up purchasing both, and this would turn up better revenue for FFG in the longterm.

You never know what is coming out as well.  WoW did 'raids' that were co-op and fairly well done.  Maybe that is something for the future?

I really hope they do make a Star Wars Solo/Co-op, but I doubt they will at that point. My main gripe is that they really nailed the feel and tone of Star Wars with the co-op version announced at 2011's GenCon. You were a rebel racing against the clock to pull of a dangerous and potentially suicidal mission. It doesn't get more Star Wars than this.

The new PvP version feels like a generic idea (generic meaning it could be any theme with the same gameplay elements) even though there are some innovative things with the gameplay like pod-building (though this could fall on its face). I really think they nailed it the first time around and the more I learn about the new version, the less interesting it seems.

Some people say that it is impossible to do tournaments with a co-op/solo game, but it's really quite simple. You build your deck and your partner(s) build(s) a deck. The tournament has unique objectives that are yet-to-be-released that you have to go against. There would be different tournament categories for solo, 2, 3, and 4 player (though, you could limit it to an exact size depending on how the tournament organizer wants it). You get a score based on how effective you are at beating the objective, how many turns it takes you, and how many cards you have left at the end.

I was excited about the co-op version but i wouldnt mind if they went pvp.

With that said im really underwhelmed about what i have seen so far. Looks like a generic pvp wich compared to the co-op doesnt feel Star Wars at all. With all the beautiful art the game has its a shame the gameplay looks so… boring. Maybe some will say its to early to judge but with a release q4 what can they change to make it more appealing?

If i were in charge i would take the core of the co-op mixing in some pvp in it. Kinda like the old Middle-earth ccg. All the players play rebels(for the core set anyway) on their turn. When its not your turn you play storm troopers/events/hazards on the player whos turn it is. So you play rebel AND empire.

 Ofcourse this is just a dream and will never happen.

If ffg release the game close to what it is now i would probably not buy it.

herozeromes said:

It's certainly not impossible, but definitely unwieldy.  In a PvP tournament, you usually just report the results after the match, calling in a judge during gameplay if there's a rules issue or suspected cheating.

In a co-op system, you would need a tournament official sitting in and administering each match to ensure the results are genuine.  It wouldn't be difficult for my and a partner to just say we got a better result than we did.  If you use the scoring of the Lord of the Rings LCG as an example, who's to know exactly how many turns it took you to win, or if you properly and fairly resolved all the Shadow effects, monster aggro, etc.

Now imagine you're a local retailer, hosting a tournament for 30 people.  You would need 15 people to just sit down and play the game with the entrants.  That seems like a lot of people involved to run a simple card tournament, versus a typical PvP situation.  Of course, we can all say that we're honest players, but when there are prizes at stake, people can do pretty underhanded things in the name of winning at all costs.

I'm not saying this set up would never happen, or that people could trust players on the honour system, but you have to admit, the safeguards needed to prevent cheating would be more elaborate.

Remember, in a PvP tournament, if you cheat, it's very much in my best interest in the standings to rat you out, so I will guarantee the match win in my favour, without risking a loss.  It will also remove you from the tournament completely, ensuring I have one less person to try and outscore.  In Co-Op, it's actually to our mutual advantage to cheat as much as possible to get the best result.

herozeromes said:

 This actually sums up my feelings on the matter. I'll keep following new information on the LCG, but at the moment it does not sound like a game I need to have. And I'll state for the record that I was pleased when FFG said they were going back to the drawing board, for the obvious reason that it suggested a likelihood of them making a PvP game instead of cooperative. I see now that you have to be careful what you wish for. 

herozeromes said:

You are greatly overestimating the ability to run a co-op game as a tournament.  As stated it requires far to much set up to be worth while or even possible.  It removes the main competitive element.  And to constantly have to release new "never seen objectives" is a burden FFG would never be able to live up to.  The LotR "tournament" scoring is a great example of trying to fit a square peg into a round whole.  The type of tournament you describe just doesn't work.

ScottieATF said:

In your opinion. It just hasn't been done before. Also, my thought is that the unseen tournament objectives could just be in the next monthly card pack. So, it's not as if they would be releasing tournament only objectives, they'd just be seen sooner at tournaments than elsewhere. I see that you are posting some really angry replies on these boards. How about instead of telling us that you don't like our opinions, you tell us what you like about the game? I would be interested in getting your perspective since you have played the demo.

To see how well a co-op LCG works in a tournament format, one only has to look at how many tournaments FFG has run (or even unofficial local in-store tournaments that we've heard of thru forums and such) for Lord of the Rings LCG in the time (almost a year and a half) since the game's release. (None).

I love Lord of the Rings LCG as much as the next guy, but it just does not work well at all for a tournament scene.

I have a genuine question here, one that has caused me perplexity in the past but never, it seems, more so than it is right now.

Why is everybody so obsessed with tournaments?

This could just be because I'm British, with no real chance of getting to any of the events (I know of just two annual events), or maybe it could be because I live nowhere near any game shop where organized play could take place. But does the success of a game really hinge on how tournament-compatible it is? Is there anyone on these boards actually qualified to answer this? Because for a game's ultimate success to depend entirely on how well it can be fitted in to two events in a year just seems farcical to me. I am genuinely stumped by this attitude, which is quite likely down to being the other side of the water as I say, but I just don't see the importance of tournaments. 

To me, a game is successful based on how well it sells, not on whether it can be played in a specific setting, that setting only arising twice annually. 

Thank you in advance