Jump to content

Mysterious Youth

Members
  • Content count

    340
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

 Content Type 

Profiles

Forums

Dragon Ball Z Trading Card Game

Star Wars Destiny

Dragon Ball Super Card Game

MetaX Trading Card Game

Calendar

Everything posted by Mysterious Youth

  1. Set 10

    I don't feel like quoting these big posts. Regarding Naruto, it was set 6 in America where we got cards specifically designed for use in the English card game. That was a mess when it came to rulings and broken-ness. I want to say that there are sets where they found their groove and sets where an old man threw off their groove. It was a learning process for them as more sets came out. Their team eventually got as small as Panini's with one guy doing most of the work and I know he was trying. Card Slinger J, I'll agree that Bandai's Dragon Ball game didn't capture the spirit of the show, but I still liked the game and played it as a modded Naruto game that happened to feature Dragon Ball. With the lack of the old days where tons of anime got card games whether they deserve it or not, I don't think it's the M.O. of modern license-based TCGs/CCGs to base a game on a show. Japan especially with games like Miracle Battle and Weiss Schwarz. Artificial Human, It looks like what you're saying is that both Panini and Bandai were trying to capitalize, but Panini didn't put in the effort Bandai seems to be. I'll agree with that. However, I don't think Panini would've handled the rarity system better if they cared more unless corporate told them to. I look at MetaX doing the same old garbage as any other card game where you need several boxes to attempt playsets of rares and still be far off from DRs/URs. You'd think they'd make sealed product more attractive on such a risky and untested venture. Card design on the other hand... If they had more resources or actual hires, they might've done better. There's just so many times where I'm frustrated at cards that needed a buff or cards that made me question what they were thinking. I'll agree that Awakening was way too obvious with its cash grab qualities. Denithan, I like your take as well. However, I do think it's a cash grab to some extent despite the positives I can't say there was no effort put into bringing the game back. The introduction of critical effects, how allies worked, etc. were vast improvements on the original game. However, whether it was lack of manpower or laziness, it was clear that playtesting was not a regular thing for them. That and each style being designed by different people really didn't make the cards themselves very cohesive. It's not a terrible idea to do styles that way but the disparity between certain styles and MPs when it came to playability was really apparent. We needed a certain quality of card design across the board.
  2. Set 10

    I suppose ease of gameplay and definitely the support from Bandai are big pros. On my end, the cost to play relative to the big games and even the risky MetaX was the biggest factor. I don't disagree with anything here but was there a right time to do the game? Or are you saying that from the position that it was a cash grab and nothing more? Would you say Super's doing the same thing by capitalizing on the property even going so far as kicking Pan Z to the side which was technically successful (unless Panini bowed out on their own)? Hopefully Bandai isn't stupid enough to pull the plug if such sales figures continue. They really just need to stop the exclusive promos to be the perfect game/business model bar bad card design. I don't know if their Dragon Ball game died solely because it was a Naruto clone. Granted I also don't know how well the game was doing outside my area for the first four sets, but that's pretty successful compared to their card games that died in 1-2 sets. Set 5 really turned the game around for the better, but the production delays and whatnot really turned people off. I was disappointed that it died, but set 5 was really a good set to go out on if I look on the bright side. That level of card design needed to be in set 1. Otherwise I think it was a more balanced Naruto at its core. Plus it was the first English card game to give us Z Gogeta. It annoyed me that the last set of Naruto was shilling a game over the original anime art we've been getting. Not to mention their own version of Assisted Kamehameha as far as cash grabs go to sell the final set.
  3. Set 10

    Mind if I ask what you mean when you say "capitalizing on nostalgia"? I don't play often so when I do the game is still fun for me. I'm still trying new decks and I love when they succeed. I'll easily keep following Fan Z as long as they keep going with it and I'm able to play. Now if only we can get more sword and Android cards after they dropped the ball with History of Trunks. This wouldn't be a bad set to do it. Somewhat off topic, but what's the secret behind Super's success? We've speculated here before, but does it come down to the low cost to play minus poorly distributed promos? Reselling said promos? Because Super's airing? I like the game as there is some level of strategic depth and decision making but could the game itself be THAT good to those who play?
  4. Why don't Living Card Games get more popular?

    All good points, but beyond theft which can happen regardless of value, there's just simply losing a card on your own and having to replace it can be a pain depending on how whatever game it was from is structured.
  5. Why don't Living Card Games get more popular?

    I was just talking to some friends about living card games and one HUGE concern brought up was if you lost a card of one got stolen. You'd have to buy the entire box again to replace one card unless there's singles (could be) which is gross in its own right even if it was your fault for losing it. The model just brought up makes that hurt far less. I don't know how much buying all those products for playsets are in relation to most living card games, but it certainly addresses a lot of specific concerns for living card games.
  6. Gimmick Cards - What's your take?

    I don't have a problem with Hi-Techs in general. I actually like the backer idea on paper. While the broken combinations would obviously win out, being able to customize your MP sounded fun. However, it really is just the idea I like. Putting it into practice... not so much. Especially trying to collect them or getting the one you want. I already hated randomized Z starter decks. GT was insane. Did they give me enough General Rilldo and Dr Myu? If we're talking card games, I like gimmicks. They help set a card game apart from the usual suspects. It also helps when they're unique to their respective card games and when there's effort in making them look awesome too.
  7. Why don't Living Card Games get more popular?

    You claim to have tried some living card games and didn't like them. That's perfectly fine. However when you say it's a "challenge" to get the good cards, there's no challenge to it. Pulling Spheres is not skill-based. If you have money to buy them or get lucky, you will have them. If you're going to go after playsets and the best cards anyway, why waste all that time, money, and effort except that you seem to like wasting time, money, and effort? You must be a huge fan of freemium games and downloadable content then. It's not a matter of people wanting things handed to them. If anything, your comment about the serious crowd makes them seem to be the entitled ones holding up a "no commoners allowed" sign. I'm not a serious player if I don't have the money? Why is that a good thing? You really believe this business model is the best way to make money and attract new players? Should Monopoly adopt the card game business model and break it up into randomized packs too? "Man, that guy has way more get out of jail free cards than I do. And my iron token doesn't stand a chance against his shoe." The cards in a living card game don't magically fuse into a meta deck. You still have to put in the work, research, and playtesting to build the decks and master them. Do you think that living card game boxes have the cards pre-sorted into the best decks or something? Where do you think the challenge in chess comes from? You don't have a sideboard or anything. The pieces you see are the pieces you get. It ALWAYS comes down to you and your skill.
  8. Why don't Living Card Games get more popular?

    I don't disagree with that, but he's saying if you want to hang with the "big boys", you better be prepared to shell out a lot of cash to fund an abusive business model. It's a privilege reserved for those with the proper finances. Something these companies could rectify to gain more customers, but refuse to because people still pay into it as is and that's okay. It's why I'm interested in how the Super card game will fare in a few years if it lasts that long. While some super rares are clearly more desirable than others, the small amount of them and most generous pull rate are pluses that I hope they continue with. Will the interest and supposed increase in players who get into the game but buy less product because they don't need it outweigh the usual suspects who indiscriminately buy boxes and not finish playsets? Find out next year on Dragon Ball Super!
  9. Why don't Living Card Games get more popular?

    The problem isn't that trading/collectible card games require investment. It's the business model of most card games that are awful. Living card games require investment too, but at a far more reasonable price. What others are saying is that living card games kind of prove that this hobby doesn't have to cost as much as most card games do. You seem to imply that competitive living card game players aren't a "serious crowd". They spend money just like any card gamer and can be just as competitive as people from Magic or Yu-Gi-Oh!. They just didn't have to break the bank to do it. If I need to spend copious amounts of money to join the "serious crowd" of Magic and Yu-Gi-Oh! as their corporate suits dictate, cheaper options start to seem more attractive. Your "different thrill" comes from something independent of the games themselves. There's nothing inherently different between a living card game and a trading/collectible one except cost. They're all card games first and foremost. You seem to be arguing from a standpoint that has nothing to do with gameplay or quality. It's clear you simply have a different mindset and have enough money to take a loss on packs with garbage rares in exchange for one or two packs with high end cards.
  10. First shot at Beerus

    You can say the same about Bulma. Both her and Buu's purpose is to give you a free card, then sit there until you need to combo as one would rarely ever attack/KO them on purpose unless they were innocent bystanders from a Goten, Family of Justice with no other targets. They also help mitigate the hand loss from playing Objection.
  11. The Bear's Red Hit

    If the printed Vados reads the same as the website's picture, she should get to check for each attack unlike cards that have once per turn like the pack blue Goku leader who also has dual attack and an attack trigger. Off topic, but when she says to "play it" if you find someone, do you still have to pay energy for it? Looking at the cards there doesn't seem to be a term besides "play" whereas Z at least had "put in play" to differentiate. She's actually pretty bad if you have to pay for who you find.
  12. Why don't Living Card Games get more popular?

    Not only that. If the living card game can be played competitively, you're probably going to need real cards. You know, if you want to be legal about it.
  13. Why don't Living Card Games get more popular?

    Then put one of the good characters on the box. It doesn't matter if a character's playable or not, Vegeta was still featured on boxes of set 1 and Evolution. If you have a license, from a pure marketing standpoint, you gotta make sure those characters are front and center, especially if the license is one as popular as Marvel. I don't mind this mentality when it comes to say... starting a new Yu-Gi-Oh! video game where you have garbage and gradually build a stronger deck as you go. That's where the challenge comes from. The challenge of competitive card games should be winning through skill even if you and everybody's playing the same deck, not going in with a handicap because you don't want to/have access to every card. I don't intentionally build meta decks unless it happens to be a character or theme I like, but you always have a choice. I don't begrudge anyone who plays the meta to win (even if it gets old) but if you claim to enjoy fiddling with unique decks, own all the cards, but build the meta anyway, then it's a matter of self control over self restriction. If you need a card you can afford/justify, get it. Even with unique decks, you should want it to be the best it can be if you can.
  14. Supers per Box

    Are any of the supers staples in any way? Or at least Sphere status where it's not necessarily a staple, but having them can be beneficial? I understand the meta isn't exactly figured out, but I would think that if the supers are already this cheap, how good the cards are aren't a factor when they're so easy to pull. Considering a playset of rares is 36 cards, then yeah. 2 boxes should get you most if not all of those unless you pull too many leaders. I don't know what the sweet spot is here. I know my friends are warming up to the game because it looks so affordable, but if that ever changes, they might get turned off. Meanwhile, stores need to order product carefully.
  15. Why don't Living Card Games get more popular?

    They would also need to be playable out of the box if we're trying to address the "cost of trying it out" issue. However I don't know if that would turn off people who are already into living card games and have to buy an additional product they normally wouldn't have to. I can't imagine a smaller product being purely reprints of cards that already exists just to cater to potential new players.
  16. Why don't Living Card Games get more popular?

    The price tag over time is a little unattractive but that might just be me. While I totally get the appeal of owning every card so you can build any deck at any time, you may be paying more into that than certain card games. PanZ is a relatively cheap game if you only buy the singles you need over boxes. It's fortunate that most decks don't need the Ultras to be competitive. Unleashed is the closest thing and I think that only hit $30 even at its most played. While I'm against $30 cards, if $90 is the bulk cost of your deck, that's not too bad compared to the bigger games especially since Unleashed will carry over to other decks you play. Rares are for the most part worthless and starter MPs as an added cost only appear periodically. Would I prefer to have access to all cards at all times? Absolutely, but with PanZ I didn't have to break the bank unless I wanted to. That's not to say things like Awakening's pull rates and how Spheres were handled weren't disgusting. It's just that objectively, PanZ was relatively cheap despite all the money-grabbing attempts. If we're talking Magic, Yu-Gi-Oh!, and their ilk, then living card games should destroy them. If you buy multiple boxes every set over singles or even if you buy singles for those games, there's no reason you shouldn't be looking at living card games with interest unless those games are bad, the licenses (if any) aren't for you, or there's no competitive scene. It just makes more sense outside of superficial reasons like foils and having the most "bling" at the table. However, unless they start making demo decks or people do research beforehand, I'll echo the idea that ~$10 starter decks trump buying the entire game if you just wanted to try it out. While I was aware that VS came back, I didn't know that's what the box looked like. Where the hell are the characters? Forget advertising the living card game model. Advertise that Spider-Man's in it.
  17. Supers per Box

    I wish there was some concrete consistency in the pull rate but even 6-8 is beyond generous. I'm questioning how much product will sell at this rate unless the good supers are short printed. The premium rares being alt art super rares is very new player friendly, but I don't think too many people will crack boxes just for a shot at them like Spheres. Hopefully this is a business model that'll attract lots of people so for any company who wonders about Super's potential "wild success", it'll change their mind about bad pull rates and their archaic, extortionate business models. What am I saying? No it won't... Let's hope Bandai doesn't take this positive reaction as a means to start adding more and more super rares in following sets like they did with Naruto.
  18. Set 10

    Regarding making Kid Trunks interchangeable with Trunks because we won't see Future Trunks after a while, it's a disappointing possibility but I don't really buy it as a justification. I'd like to think that Nail and Raditz will some day get new levels and if they can out of the blue, so can Trunks. Putting that aside, he's still in Bojack, Super, and has a flashback in Battle of Gods. Even if we don't see him for a while, we know he's coming. With how Future Gohan was handled (which I cannot see the reasoning for), there is no lack of Gohan appearances to the point that we need to sacrifice Future Gohan as an extra MP to support regular Gohan. It makes no sense. Not to mention they straight up fumbled when they made a set including History of Trunks and designed ZERO sword or android cards. Like really, how do you do that?
  19. Set 10

    Unless they call Kid Trunks "Trunks", they'd have to errata Dr Brief as well. There's no reason he shouldn't work with his grandson. You never know. Perhaps Panini always intended for Kid Trunks to be "Trunks" with how they made Dr Brief. They had the foresight to make Chichi work with Goten so I want to believe it was a conscious decision even if I'm disappointed by it. A Videl stack isn't in question. She'll definitely get one but Hercule is featured quite a bit so I think he deserves a single level here to help him out.
  20. Set 10

    Does anyone else want Great Saiyaman to be his own MP and not swappable with Gohan? I'd still let him use Gohan named cards but let him be his alter ego and have another character that can use all six styles. As much as I like Gohan, I don't think he needs help after nonsensically making Future Gohan not his own MP. I'd be more accepting of Saiyaman being interchangeable if Future Gohan wasn't but the idea of Great Saiyaman being his own MP because of his secret identity is fun in its own way. Let's hope they don't do something stupid and make Kid Trunks interchangeable with Trunks... Definitely looking forward to hero 18, a not awful Hercule LV 1, and something for Piccolo. There'd better be some new Android and named cards for old characters... I'm actually pretty disappointed in Spopovich being a MP. I get that there's slim picking for villains, but ugh. I feel like the heritage thing will probably only apply to the colored styles which I'm totally for. Are we finally breaking the stupid barrier of not making new versions of allies that exist? Hoping for a Goku or Vegeta that aren't terrible.
  21. Awakening Cell is broken.

    I think it's still fun to talk about the card game whenever someone has something good to bring up. I'm okay with Trunks. Perhaps I'm not seeing the builds they're talking about or I'm running the right decks/cards to stop him, but I'm assuming it's how fast he gets off 1 and once they hit Evolution 3, they're in a good position for the most part. I think the crux of it is his 2 because it doesn't do anything to further a win condition and it's blank against at least half of the matchups. I generally can't stop his 1 but when they're on 2, they're kind of stuck relying on good draws to get off of it. That kind of says it all. I have numerous problems with the cards and the nonsensical rules, but the game itself will always be fun.
  22. Awakening Cell is broken.

    Totally off topic but going off the last few posts, I still think tiebreakers should be applied for swiss. I don't know how others feel about that but I just don't care for ties, especially when there's a VERY clear winner after extra turns are finished. FanZ follows Panini's rules as much as they can which I'm okay with, but since Panini didn't do anything regarding these issues with the last CRD post, we're just not going to have either. Regarding triggers, I dislike having to remind my opponent about any triggers. I admit that we're all prone to forget our own at times as well, but I feel that if such a rule is in place, it should only apply to mandatory triggers. If I'm guessing right, your opponent had Orange Energy Phasing Drill? That's an optional effect. You shouldn't have to ask about each and every card on the board if they don't say anything. Maybe when it comes to Events, it's worth asking "Sphere?" but otherwise, no. It should be their problem. I don't know any other game that does this.
  23. Comic Con Promos and Foil Pattern

    https://paninigames.com/2017/07/14/metax-previews-promos-and-foil-pattern/ I'm surprised they went with Aquaman over Batman or Superman to promote the game. I don't know if it's news that the promos are alternate art, but I hope that's the trend.
  24. Staples

    Okay, so "not necessarily" meaning nothing that would push the exclusives to the point where you have to have them. It's convenient to have a playset of everything if you can, but in this case it's convincing someone who's shaky to begin with and doesn't want to invest a lot if he doesn't have to. Also, I don't know how good the secondary market would be on the game, let alone starter exclusives. I don't see a lot of people/stores opening extra decks to resell singles like Panini's set 1 starters. We'll see.
  25. Staples

    I'm trying to get a friend into the game when it comes out. He doesn't want to buy two decks but is wondering if the starter exclusives are worth buying two decks for playsets?
×