Meta/Errata/Thoughts going forward

SWCCG game play discussion.
retwin316
LS Region: Corellia
LS Region: Corellia
Posts: 3898
Joined: March 14th, 2007, 4:55 pm
Location: Indianapolis, In
Contact:

Meta/Errata/Thoughts going forward

Post by retwin316 »

The game definitely seems to be in a very delicate place. Do we reset, do we not reset, is there another way? Is the dwindling interest from some players based on no live events and not the state of the game? Many questions, and make or break, i think v13 is going to be the deciding direction of where the game goes from here, and what has to be done to bring the excitement back.

Moving forward though... And i was all for fixing broken stuff, but in hindsight, what really makes something broken? Orogonal rebel fleet v was broken, it certainly needed changed. Original strategic reserves, very powerful, but broken?

So many decks that were strong were nerfed into never being played again... Map, oa, etc. Instead of just continuing to make strong cards, we just nerfed those decks over and over until no one plays them. Some of them definitely need some tweaks, but not so much that they became unplayable. No idea seems like the next casualty of these actions.

This is not a knock on anyone or a call out, and I know I was guilty for calling for errata on some stuff as well, but seeing the aftermath of all that makes me feel like i was wrong, and it's not the way.

I honestly wish we could bring back old map, oa, rops, etc. Having the meta be the same exact 3 or 4 decks (total for both sides) is just dull.

Moving forward maybe we should go back to having it so everyone can playtest, because many of is just don't have time, and having a fresh perspective might be what the game needs. Maybe we should possible start discussing unerrating (not a word, I know) cards.

Also, and again, this is not a knock on anyone... Maybe we should open up design to everyone, or maybe have groups of people? There are like 5 people in design, right? What if each of them had a team with like 4 other brilliant swccg minds? Those teams could come up with ways to design and direction for the game, then the head of each team could get together with the main group and discuss. Maybe this is already how it's done, but just throwing out ideas.

Also during these times, maybe we should open up player design cards more? Have smaller events where winner gets to design a v card, have them work side by side with someone in design to make a good card, instead of what usually happens, having another unplayable v card.

Anyways, just thoughts, and trying to find a positive way to move forward. We all love swccg, and i think most of us realize the game is not heading in the direction we want, so I'm just trying to find ways to bring excitement back to the game. Bring back Chu, bring back Mischke, bring back Reid, bring back Emil and Tom Haid (haven't seen you guys play in ages)... Let's pull together as a community and make this game great again!



allstarz97
World Champion
World Champion
Posts: 7034
Joined: April 1st, 2007, 2:15 pm

Re: Meta/Errata/Thoughts going forward

Post by allstarz97 »

I don’t think it’s fair to put that much pressure on set 13- like if it’s good and swccg is in an awesome place meta wise...

.... gemp will still make sure get figured out and when that happens interest will fade.

.....the global pandemic will still be here.

.... live events are still not on the horizon.

I think the volume of games is the #1 reason interest to play wanes for a large majority.

Like if we teleported back to 2013* and gemp has everything coded for that time and place and it was poof all of a sudden the current meta current standard format.. we’d eventually get tired of it as well.

——————-
Gemp has created a need for rapid change, and the most recent set/errata currently feels like it bears too kixbof the cross to change that.

*arbitrary year, assume this means like a good meta etc.

User avatar
SmallDarkLines
Member
Posts: 2222
Joined: October 13th, 2014, 2:25 pm
Location: Ireland
GEMP Username: Tardis

Re: Meta/Errata/Thoughts going forward

Post by SmallDarkLines »

In terms of player cards, I’d definitely be in favour of a more open selection of options to choose from - I’ve got several, however it’s been difficult to be as excited by them as I wanted to be, due to the thematic restrictions (I like mains and especially LSC, but that’s hard to do with sandcrawlers and such).
If it comes to a reset, I’d like those design options back, but thematically grouped - for example, getting dark rage, ebb of battle, qui gons end as an LSC package.

I think we have a good selection of stuff right now, and we probably have a few sets left before any sweeping changes are needed.
New or returning player? Click here for the information you need to know.

Beat me mercilessly on GEMP: Tardis
Say hello at an event:Darren
Image

Image

User avatar
sac89837
Member
Posts: 10979
Joined: November 29th, 2007, 4:06 pm

Re: Meta/Errata/Thoughts going forward

Post by sac89837 »

To me Star Wars ccg has never been better, since I can get a game whenever I want. Even if I am doing emergency server maintenance at midnight (like last night). Just in the past week I had some test to 6 on me, beat me with Barquin D'an + Gardulla the Hutt and I drew 3 Scout Blasters for destiny in a row with Biker Scout Gear out. If people want to play off the wall creative decks we have a fun Jawa format.

If players want some other format we can do it in GEMP, all they have to do is ask. There are a million and one ways we could mix things up if people are bored.

Also Emil and Tom Haid are on design. They haven't gone anywhere.
On a unicorn, riding a unicorn over a rainbow.

"Bounty Hunters don't do brunch."

User avatar
Echo Base Trooper
Reflections Gold
Reflections Gold
Posts: 5576
Joined: October 30th, 2002, 7:48 pm
Location: Eagle Mountain, Utah
GEMP Username: echobstrpr

Re: Meta/Errata/Thoughts going forward

Post by Echo Base Trooper »

allstarz97 wrote:
September 25th, 2020, 3:47 pm
Gemp has created a need for rapid change
100% this

Multiple small sets throughout the year would keep things from feeling stale for too long. Even if they don't end up shaking up the meta too much in the long run, it would be at least a few weeks where people are trying new things and making things more interesting.

Set 12/Tweak Set was in March. That was mostly just changing old cards which doesn't feel quite the same as actually getting new cards. Before that, Set 11 was in August of last year. That's a long time to go with very few new cards, especially with the number of games on GEMP increasing so much this year.
Adam Fletcher
Lead Proofer, GEMP Slicer
Image Image

arebelspy
World Champion
World Champion
Posts: 17310
Joined: July 14th, 2005, 4:45 pm
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Re: Meta/Errata/Thoughts going forward

Post by arebelspy »

Agree with the entire OP, and the idea for faster releases.

5 cards a month rather than 30 every 6 months is more exciting, shifts the meta, spreads out the effort involved, etc.

rhendon
Member
Posts: 11464
Joined: August 24th, 2010, 12:58 pm

Re: Meta/Errata/Thoughts going forward

Post by rhendon »

arebelspy wrote:
September 25th, 2020, 5:08 pm

5 cards a month rather than 30 every 6 months is more exciting, shifts the meta, spreads out the effort involved, etc.
We had player surveys in the past where we voted against this approach. People wanted 1 big set a year and then a small set that tweaked the meta. Since this was pre-gemp, the meta developed slower and it made sense. This is what the players wanted.

Now things have changed and we could probably do that. But hopefully it will be in the next player survey and we can see what people want and make adjustments.
Hunter wrote:
April 8th, 2020, 5:19 am
I agree with rhendon that Joe is Scum.

aermet69
LS Region: Toola
LS Region: Toola
Posts: 5705
Joined: July 14th, 2009, 2:16 pm
Location: Denmark (Toola)
GEMP Username: aermet69

Re: Meta/Errata/Thoughts going forward

Post by aermet69 »

arebelspy wrote:
September 25th, 2020, 5:08 pm
Agree with the entire OP, and the idea for faster releases.

5 cards a month rather than 30 every 6 months is more exciting, shifts the meta, spreads out the effort involved, etc.
I disagree. This is one of the few things that always bugged me with FFGs Netrunner (and the LCG format). The constant flow of few new cards meant you never really got to 'play' a deck and get good at it - because it kept changing and shifting too often too much. Maybe it's really nice for those who play 10+ matches a week. I don't. Even if I thought the meta and game were in the perfect place - wherever that is I wouldn't allocate that much time a week.
- Casper Jørgensen
aermet69 - Member of Team Copenhagen
"Team Copenhagen never dies. They just go to the bar and respawn."
~UK National Champion 2011. ~Worlds 2012, 10th place. ~German Nationals 2014, Runner-up. ~European Champion 2014. ~Toola Regionals 2015, Runner-Up.

maxbeedo
LS Region: Dantooine
LS Region: Dantooine
Posts: 658
Joined: July 25th, 2006, 2:47 pm
Location: DFW

Re: Meta/Errata/Thoughts going forward

Post by maxbeedo »

Whenever nerfs come up I'm always reminded of this video: Analysis: Why We Should Buff More Than Nerf (It's mostly in the context of Fighting Games but it covers the topic in general)
"One nerf... will hurt twice as bad as one buff of similar caliber will feel good."

User avatar
TacoBill
Member
Posts: 5355
Joined: January 18th, 2003, 8:32 pm
Location: MD

Re: Meta/Errata/Thoughts going forward

Post by TacoBill »

I think we've hit a perfect storm of what's causing people to not enjoy the game at the moment: a season of OCS games just finished capped off by a 2-month long major, the best decks being super grindy with some matches taking ~2 hours, some Gemp lag issues (although I'm told there was a trial fix put in place), no new cards in 6 months, no in-person tournament to reinvigorate/reenergize everyone, and a ton more games played than in past years. I hope that these errata put the meta in a good spot, and hope that v13 isn't far behind. Then we can build some hype for Worlds and hopefully carry it over into next year's calendar as well.
Bill Kafer
Image
Cam Solusar wrote:What TacoBill proposes is ideal IMO.
Corran wrote:Honestly, Tacobill should just be the boss of SWCCG.

User avatar
CoffeePass
Member
Posts: 187
Joined: January 12th, 2019, 4:34 am

Re: Meta/Errata/Thoughts going forward

Post by CoffeePass »

I want to throw this out there as a real pie-in-the-sky idea that I recognize might be completely impossible, but do we think we could ever reach a point in the game where there's like 10 legit decks per side where you'd be happy to bring to a competitive event? Like you get the right amount of helpers for Tier 3 stuff, tone down powerful things, and then legit have a lot of good options without a clear cut Tier 1 with 1-3 decks per side? Then D&D isn't constantly having to be reactive to the meta but instead is making new decks, tweaking stuff to be more playable and, yes, issuing errata when something is too powerful.

I think if that happened then suddenly GEMP wouldn't become something we get burned out on but instead something we're like super excited to play a lot since you'd have so many different matchups to play against. And, yes, there would be a bit more RPS/randomness to matchups, but I think that feels better in the long run then having a couple decks dominate the meta and subsequently invalidate a dozen other decks.

Right now it just seems to be default assumed we are going to have like 2-3 decks per side (or sometimes only one) that are clearly a cut above everything else, and then we just take turns errating them until something else creeps up to the top spot (in the year or so I've been playing it's gone from AOBS to RalOps to ISB for Dark and looks like Light is going from TRM to No Idea to Legend). Does that have to be true? I get there will always be a "best" deck but could it come from a naturally shifting meta and not from something else being cut down because it was OP?

I've been thinking about this a lot and don't know if this is something that could legitimately happen (it feels like it's within reach) or not. SWCCG is just so uniquely situated to potentially get there because of the deck duality and a huge historical pool to draw deck ideas from (e.g. make helpers for a ton of different older objectives). I also know it is easier to dream than it is execute.

arebelspy
World Champion
World Champion
Posts: 17310
Joined: July 14th, 2005, 4:45 pm
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Re: Meta/Errata/Thoughts going forward

Post by arebelspy »

Yes. It happens from time to time that the meta is wide open.

Players then usually complain about RPS.

I'd rather RPS from a dozen than 3, personally.

Hazardville
LS Region: Tatooine
LS Region: Tatooine
Posts: 813
Joined: January 28th, 2018, 5:37 am
GEMP Username: Jagteq

Re: Meta/Errata/Thoughts going forward

Post by Hazardville »

CoffeePass wrote:
September 25th, 2020, 8:36 pm
I want to throw this out there as a real pie-in-the-sky idea that I recognize might be completely impossible, but do we think we could ever reach a point in the game where there's like 10 legit decks per side where you'd be happy to bring to a competitive event? Like you get the right amount of helpers for Tier 3 stuff, tone down powerful things, and then legit have a lot of good options without a clear cut Tier 1 with 1-3 decks per side? Then D&D isn't constantly having to be reactive to the meta but instead is making new decks, tweaking stuff to be more playable and, yes, issuing errata when something is too powerful.

I think if that happened then suddenly GEMP wouldn't become something we get burned out on but instead something we're like super excited to play a lot since you'd have so many different matchups to play against. And, yes, there would be a bit more RPS/randomness to matchups, but I think that feels better in the long run then having a couple decks dominate the meta and subsequently invalidate a dozen other decks.

Right now it just seems to be default assumed we are going to have like 2-3 decks per side (or sometimes only one) that are clearly a cut above everything else, and then we just take turns errating them until something else creeps up to the top spot (in the year or so I've been playing it's gone from AOBS to RalOps to ISB for Dark and looks like Light is going from TRM to No Idea to Legend). Does that have to be true? I get there will always be a "best" deck but could it come from a naturally shifting meta and not from something else being cut down because it was OP?

I've been thinking about this a lot and don't know if this is something that could legitimately happen (it feels like it's within reach) or not. SWCCG is just so uniquely situated to potentially get there because of the deck duality and a huge historical pool to draw deck ideas from (e.g. make helpers for a ton of different older objectives). I also know it is easier to dream than it is execute.
I think part of the problem with that is the design philosophy of SWCCG (which in this case is largely a legacy of Decipher decisions).

SWCCG has tended, historically, to lean on heavy-handed threats and answers. Blowout cards like Elis and Nabrun exist, but they're kept in check by cards that render them so narrow as to be close to useless (IAO/Insurrection) or cards that keep the blowout the same but reverse it (QAM/Oota non-v). Lt. Blount is the perfect example of this, where he's an extremely narrow card that might make the cut in No Idea because he's a cheap spy pilot with a lot of forfeit but otherwise would never get played by anyone...except when ISB is a big part of the meta, and then he's a consideration for everyone who can play him.

That, though, is the issue. When our potential answers are such narrow, swingy power cards (things like Guts come to mind, or even virtual examples like RU), a wide open meta with 10 potential decks poses a huge problem, because most decks can't afford to run all those super specific cards and thus get blown out by terrible matchups that they couldn't fit answers for. A meta like that feels impossible to prepare for, and SWCCG is a game of inches to a degree that such a meta, to me at least, feels worse than one with 2 or 3 decks at the top.

M:TG can aim for a meta like that (and still miss almost all the time) because their answers are more general (these cards stop any non-creature, so they're applicable against a lot of different decks, etc.) and because of the sideboard (my counterspells only get added to my deck when I'm playing opponents that they're relevant against so I don't lose when I draw them and they're dead). I'm not sure SWCCG can really do that by nature.
Justin Miyashiro
Image

Blarg
Reflections Gold
Reflections Gold
Posts: 3537
Joined: January 12th, 2010, 11:56 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: Meta/Errata/Thoughts going forward

Post by Blarg »

It depends on the mechanics of the best decks. The problem right now is that the best decks tend to completely invalidate entire strategies, which means that only a small number of decks can even properly interact with them.

ISB: Can't go wide unless you can deal with the drain -1, can't drain big at one site unless you can deal with strategic reserves, have to be able to defend twixes, have to be able to fight large power totals.
Court: Can't spread too much and let Scum retrieve a lot, have to be able to either give up space or fight in space early on.

No Idea: Can't rely too much on weapons / EPPs, have to defend non-battlegrounds, have to be able to fight large power totals.
Legend: Can't rely too much on weapons, can't be too weak to Finn / bd adders, have to be able to deal with Legend's flexible damage (+1 drain anywhere, Rey, BB-8, space and ground, R2).
TRM: Have to be able to fight efficient guys with sabers, deal with R2, can't rely too much on Tatooine (or you give up used pile pulls).

There are lots of decks right now that should be good, in the sense that they have lots of powerful cards, but they just can't deal with one of those things above. For example, HD has all sorts of crazy cards, and its power level on paper is really high, but it just can't deal with R2 and with No Idea. There were too many "hoops" to jump through and it couldn't get through them all.

The way to get a lot of viable decks is to make decks that can interact with each other, and that don't invalidate entire parts of each other's strategies. Compare ROPS to ISB. ROPS doesn't inherently limit the deck space as much as ROPS, because to get the drain -1, ROPS has to flip, which means it has to be at multiple sites, which means you can attack it. So when you make a deck, you have multiple options: either you try to still do more damage even with the -1 (like QMC) in which case ROPS has to attack Cloud City, or you have to attack Ralltiir yourself. (This actually has the side benefit of keeping LS decks "honest", because they have to be able to interact at battlegrounds.) In order to keep the meta open, you just have to make sure ROPS is not so good at fighting than no one can invade Ralltiir. In ISB on the other hand, they get the drain -1 just by occupying one site anywhere, and the Strategic Reserves force drain cancel for free. So they can be stacked at one site, killing all your drains, and there's not much you can do to meaningfully interact with them. So if you can't deal with the drain -1, you just lose. As soon as ISB is good, the space of viable decks shrinks. Desai tried to make a TRM to beat ISB and still lost. Joe made a mains deck to beat ISB and lost. Its just too hard to interact with ISB.

So basically the recipe is to make a whole bunch of "honest" decks. An "honest" deck is one that:
- plays guys to battlegrounds
- can be battled by normal means, e.g. weapons, battle destinies, or power
- any bonuses that will make it win a matchup can be turned off by battling/moving/deploying, and the bonus is proportional to the difficulty of keeping it on

arebelspy
World Champion
World Champion
Posts: 17310
Joined: July 14th, 2005, 4:45 pm
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Re: Meta/Errata/Thoughts going forward

Post by arebelspy »

IMBATS seriously neuters a lot of DS right now.

I was trying to prep for texas stuff and a lot of the non ISB DS are on Tat.

Cct, court, watoo, IE. All of them giving up used pile pulls is awful for them.

Bib Fortuna
DS Region: Endor
DS Region: Endor
Posts: 1896
Joined: October 31st, 2002, 2:58 am
Location: Springfield, OR
Contact:

Re: Meta/Errata/Thoughts going forward

Post by Bib Fortuna »

What if IMBATS were changed so you can only use it while playing Profit? Or if we wanted to expand that a little, make the first sentence read “If your Tatooine site on table, deploy on table.” So that way, Profit, Diplo, WYS, and AITC to a lesser extent can use it, but it would still curb the abuse from non-Tatooine decks.
They fly now!

User avatar
sac89837
Member
Posts: 10979
Joined: November 29th, 2007, 4:06 pm

Re: Meta/Errata/Thoughts going forward

Post by sac89837 »

Bib Fortuna wrote:
September 25th, 2020, 10:30 pm
What if IMBATS were changed so you can only use it while playing Profit? Or if we wanted to expand that a little, make the first sentence read “If your Tatooine site on table, deploy on table.” So that way, Profit, Diplo, WYS, and AITC to a lesser extent can use it, but it would still curb the abuse from non-Tatooine decks.
What if instead is said "your tatooine site", so what the DS is playing becomes less important?
On a unicorn, riding a unicorn over a rainbow.

"Bounty Hunters don't do brunch."

rsersen
Booster Box
Booster Box
Posts: 1734
Joined: January 28th, 2017, 3:42 pm
Location: Hanover, PA
GEMP Username: rsersen
Contact:

Re: Meta/Errata/Thoughts going forward

Post by rsersen »

aermet69 wrote:
September 25th, 2020, 5:37 pm
arebelspy wrote:
September 25th, 2020, 5:08 pm
Agree with the entire OP, and the idea for faster releases.

5 cards a month rather than 30 every 6 months is more exciting, shifts the meta, spreads out the effort involved, etc.
I disagree. This is one of the few things that always bugged me with FFGs Netrunner (and the LCG format). The constant flow of few new cards meant you never really got to 'play' a deck and get good at it - because it kept changing and shifting too often too much. Maybe it's really nice for those who play 10+ matches a week. I don't. Even if I thought the meta and game were in the perfect place - wherever that is I wouldn't allocate that much time a week.
x2. GEMP moves fast, but it's not like the meta is solved in a matter of days, or even a week. New cards every 4-6 weeks would be a strain not only on all the volunteers, but players who would like a little bit of time to discover and enjoy top decks before they go away.

I think medium-ish sets every 3-4 months is the sweet spot. One in early spring, one late summer, and one at end of year (maybe this can be an annual tweak set instead). That gives about one month for everyone to parse through the set and top decks to start emerging. Another month for people to build counters and see if those top decks are really good or flavor of the week. And a final month to actually enjoy games in a mostly "solved" meta, before things get shaken up again.

But sticking to a timeline like that is most of the battle. I feel like we've talked before about wanting 3 sets a year, then things get delayed for any multitude of reasons, and suddenly it's 6-8 months with still no date announced yet. I appreciate D&D wanting to take extra time and get everything right. But if a target date is approaching and 10-15 cards still need refining, I'd rather see them cut and worked on for the next set, rather than pushing everything out and having no idea when to expect anything.
stubbly wrote:Echo Base Trooper is the Siri of SWCCG
Image

Image

User avatar
CoffeePass
Member
Posts: 187
Joined: January 12th, 2019, 4:34 am

Re: Meta/Errata/Thoughts going forward

Post by CoffeePass »

rsersen wrote:
September 26th, 2020, 12:34 am
x2. GEMP moves fast, but it's not like the meta is solved in a matter of days, or even a week. New cards every 4-6 weeks would be a strain not only on all the volunteers, but players who would like a little bit of time to discover and enjoy top decks before they go away.
I agree with this and I actually partially pushback on the "GEMP is causing the meta to accelerate" belief: no additional competitive games have been played on GEMP that would not have existed, anyways -- OCS always happens, MPC went from IRL to online, and TMW basically replaced Nationals. I don't think a huge uptick in casual games really mattered that much to the meta being solved; ISB was putting up results for back in May OCS when Greg Shaw went undefeated with it to qualify and honestly the list hasn't changed that much since then (Endor sites became Cloud City sites, and that idea came from watching others play it in OCS games, not like hundreds of hours of testing with alts in casual games). Come 2021 or whenever we are back to normal, I think the dynamic will still be the same (unless we just drop the OCS and competitive play from GEMP altogether).

arebelspy
World Champion
World Champion
Posts: 17310
Joined: July 14th, 2005, 4:45 pm
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Re: Meta/Errata/Thoughts going forward

Post by arebelspy »

We're not saying Gemp speed up the meta just the last few months.

This has been a thing since June 2018. A new set was released, and the first cards rolled out on Gemp were the black sun cards. Iterations of aobs started rolling around gemp and with two months essentially the better versions were made and everyone had it at worlds.

If there was no gemp, and just people privately testing with teams on random weekends they could get together, there wouldn't have been nearly as many aobs, or LS decks geared to beat aobs

That was the first time we really noticed the impact of gemp on the meta, and how quickly it allows meta evolution. Happened with Rops too.

So even if mpc and tmw were IRL, the amount of gemp happening would have sped up the meta and made it stale quicker. And that will happen in 2021 as well, even if those events return to IRL. Gemp = more games played than we had 3, 4 years ago, it's just a fact.

I'm curious how you explain how many people are bored with this meta?

I agree medium sets every 3-4 months would be ideal, but that's been said for years, and we've had d&d teams better and worse at sticking to deadlines, and it has been a struggle for awhile. Trying something new (rolling out smaller batches when they're ready) seems worth a shot.


Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”