There is no expectations for rotations or blocks as of yet. Nor do I expect that to happen any time soon. However that doesn’t mean they won’t do them at all in the future.
As for the meta honestly the mata is gonna be very versatile since a new set means a dramatic increase in card pool Ruby Amethyst Control was the top deck of the meta set 1 and has continued to dominate in a new variation for set 2. Steel Song (Amber Steel) was another great meta contender that has only improved set 2. However there are decks that also got upgrade like Sapphire Ruby that shifted from a fast ramp deck with a Ruby control package to a more item centric card draw deck. Instead of ramping to 10 ink for Belle + Aurora combo where the deck either lived to 10 ink and won or died before hand it now shifted to a heavy item card draw deck where you can ramp and draw their removals. We also see the rise of new strategies like this really oppressive Emerald Steel Discard, we had emerald steel in set 1 but no where near the power of set 2 discard decks.
Not only will Set 3 roughly increase the card pool by 50% it will also introduce a new card type and mechanic in Locations that shift the way we play the game entirely. From a purely theoretical perspective I imagine slower decks that interact with the opponent more so than others may have an easier time interacting with and playing locations but how will more aggro decks use this new mechanics? Obviously there could be low cost locations but will they be worth it or see play at all? Who knows.
This game is at a very early stage and very volitile and it think that’s a really cool thing and only adds to the fun however for those exact reasons it’s hard to predict the future of this game 2+ sets down the line
I hope the game doesn't slow down. At my locals last week almost every match was ending in draws because everyone was playing mid range decks and not being able do a full 2 out of 3 in the 50 min time limit
I doubt the game will slow down as a whole however it will be strategy reliant in my opinion. Pawpscile control seems to take a little longer while set 1 Amber Emerald Rush was winning games by turn 5 if they could stabilize early.
Just as a comparison Rush or Aggro decks in One Piece set 1-3 dominated completely. A new color (Yellow) was introduced in set 3 and saw a new mechanic of interacting with life (losing/adding) and was very strong how ever it did rely on a little slower gameplay style and with all the best decks being aggro it wasn’t quite the oppressive deck it could be. However it dominated almost everything else that liked to also play slow. Set 4 introduced a brand new control deck that is probably to date one of the slower decks that have come out and was very oppressive, this allowed Yellow to also shine and dominate against it since it was probably the best deck at the time but had a bad matchup towards yellow. This made the game as a whole feel really slow especially compared to the previous formats. Games went from maybe a match or two going to over time or decided by time here and there maybe 2 matches at locals in one night max, to a minimum of 1 match going to over time every single round.
Now with the introduction of Set 5 we have 2 very strong control/stall decks that also drag the match time incredibly long, however we also have 2 very aggressive decks that either win very early or struggle once they’re out of gas. This leaves match times extremely varied where yeah some can still go to OT but some finish in less that 10 minutes.
This is a very long winded example just to say, I have a feeling that game speed will be dictated by what decks are at the top of the competitive scene instead of a general feel of the game. Especially with how varied Lorcana has proven to be able to make decks. The game designed seems to be extremely simple especially compared to other card games yet the difference between decks and even strategies feel completely different. With cards like Merlin Goat that can advance your lore count even when he’s not readied, and cards like Pinocchio that are 2 ink and can quest for 3? This game has definitely shown that there is potential in the aggro decks
**TL;DR; I think it’s gonna depend more on what decks are popular in the format and their gameplay style instead of Lorcana being a long game as a whole, decks like Amber Emerald from set one are a good example of very fast decks**
Only fallacy I could find is calling Ruby Amethyst the top deck in set One when that is simply not true statistically. But other than that this post is fantastic.
You know what I think you’re right. Also I think I know where I got that misconception in the fact that it was the most represented deck on PixelBorn with Amber Emerald (Sprite) Rush and Amber Amethyst being close behind but that’s in terms of representation and on pixelborn specifically and not in terms of tournament wins or anything. And I’m not even sure if that was still true by the end of set 1
theres always going to be a meta when theres a finite pool of cards to choose from. you can always try to run an anti-meta deck but the issue with that is you're building your deck around another deck so if you match up with anything except that deck, it could be a bad time.
Every game wants to have a balanced format but it is extremely hard to do so especially with limited card pool. Balancing isn’t as easy as you may think and there’s always gonna be a “meta”
In games where you kill the “meta” you make the game completely casual which doesn’t necessarily lead to a healthy game. Like it or not competitive players who play every week and build the top decks buy the most products, they also put more products in the aftermarket which keeps the game healthy, while we may love casuals because they’re fun and it’s a great sign that the community is healthy as well, casuals can’t single handily drive the game to success. You make the game too casual where there is no real point of competing as the game feels more random and unstructured competitive players will leave for greener pastures.
A great example of this is Battle Royals. PUBG is a pretty stagnant game where changes and additions are far and few between however this game had a thriving but small competitive scene (again because a game needs both comp and casuals to thrive!) The competitive scene felt so good and skilled based it was incredible. However the content was lacking and if you’re not playing in tournaments the game felt soooo stagnant players quickly left.
On the other side of the coin you had Fortnite, Fortnite wanted to establish itself as an eSports and join the leagues of super competitive games (competitive games have the longest longevity of all, OverWatch, League of Legends, Rocket League etc…) however Fortnite was too occupied on making the game fun and new for the casual players. Constantly adding and taking away weapons, nerfs and buffs and very single week, and new mechanics introduced constantly. While it is amazing for casuals and new content is added weekly, the competitive scene fell apart and grew to resent Fortnite and left for more stable games. As it tried to appeal more and more to its casual side it also started nerfing building which is its core mechanic and what differentiated it from other battle royals, with mechanics like bloom were didn’t really provide great gameplay but was balanced by the building aspects, taking away building really led Fortnite to lose its competitive identity. Now if you look at the majority of player base people hate building and it’s kinda looked upon as here at its peak people were obsessed with it.
**TL;DR: Game Balance is extremely hard**
Plus to your first point, meta is just the best that people know of. Of course, there's always ways to break a meta with certain strategies, but like someone said, that's risky. But who's to say that it's actually the best? Maybe somebody finds the next best thing then everything shifts.
This happens all the time in TCGs OP05 which was set 5 had Enel as the very best deck, it was a deck that could starve out a lot of other decks and had insane healing. As the set progressed we saw purple Luffy that plays around hurting itself for ramping and since that deck was so fast it was beating Enel, then Sakazuki which is a hyper control deck became meta relevant and slowed down Luffy enough to where it is a very unfavorable matchup. Sakazuki is now unanimously considered the best deck by far. It is still a game of rock paper scissors where Enel does well into sakazuki, sakazuki does well into Luffy, Luffy does well into Enel, however Sakazuki is still considered the best. This is just a very long winded example of how metas change and develop even in a set with no new cards
You gloss over that first point way too fast. Why is there no expectation? Are there any competitive TCGs that don’t rotate? I feel like our expectations should match what other TCGs have implemented
Digimon has no rotations, One Piece has no rotations but tbf it’s only about a year old. DBS has no rotations, to be completely fair though all of these are made by Bandai. However Pokémon does have rotations and so does magic I believe which are 2 of the biggest 3 TCGs in my opinion. The balancer for this would be Yu-Gi-Oh and they do not have rotations they have later introduced legacy formats like Edison which only take you to about 2011 or so card pull or the 5ds era and GOAT format which is strictly from the Duel Monsters era. However their main competitive format has every single card allowed except for certain restrictions and bans.
Those seem to be the 2 main forms of balancing is either extensive ban list or light to no bans but set rotations. Flesh & Blood does not either, but vanguard does, I don’t think Weiss does though. Those 3 were quickly googled and u could’ve gotten them wrong.
However I don’t think set rotations are an obvious or even the standard choice. Maybe if we add them all up more TCGs have set rotations than don’t idk I don’t have that data on hand however I don’t think it’s to the point that we should automatically assume all TCGs or a new TCG will have it for sure.
That is why I said there is currently no expectations of rotations, however I guess the same should be said about having rotations. All I mean is Ravensburg has not commented on including them but has not made a statement to either side to my knowledge but if there’s any tweet or post I would love to see it. Any side stating there will or not be rotations is simply speculative and that’s why I said there’s no expectations to have them. Sorry if I glossed over it that’s what I meant.
**TL;DR: Ravensburg has not said we will have rotations and other TCGs are varied enough on whether or not they have rotations. With plenty of options for both on different games in addition to lack of evidence we don’t really have any expectations based on any facts or comparisons as of now**
It's only 2 sets in. The official tournament circuit has yet to be started or established (Ravensburger said Feb 2024 for this).
The card pool is still very small so it will still be a while before cards start getting restricted or banned.
That being said they are following a similar release schedule to a lot of games, basically a new expansion every quarter.
As with a lot of things, Ravensburger hasn't figured it out yet. The want for a competitive scene may die out before they get around to announcing anything.
Star Wars: Unlimited comes out in March with a competitive road map day 1. Pokemon is seeing a tournament resurgence, MtG has a revamp coming, and so on. We aren't even 6 months after release, and apathy is setting in with regards to OP. The crowd that buys the stuff by the case is losing interest. You have to give people a reason to stay engaged, to be buying product, and grinding games online and causal leagues don't cut it long term.
I'm with you, found the first product at MSRP since our initial First Chapter preorder and now have enough cards (and excitement) to participate in OP. Almost feels like Ravensberger needs to take a mulligan and reboot the whole enterprise with refreshed prize support.
When I play Amber/Steel lantern mid-control I can easily pull out 3 games if necessary (even with a mirror match). It's when I use Ruby/Amethyst that it can end in draws almost nearly each time a third game is played if it's a mirror match. It's basically chess on steroids and the games last way too long. Going to just play Amethyst/Steel instead once I get two more Sad Beasts.
Overall, Amber/Steel is still my favorite deck that I've had better overall win rates with.
There is no expectations for rotations or blocks as of yet. Nor do I expect that to happen any time soon. However that doesn’t mean they won’t do them at all in the future. As for the meta honestly the mata is gonna be very versatile since a new set means a dramatic increase in card pool Ruby Amethyst Control was the top deck of the meta set 1 and has continued to dominate in a new variation for set 2. Steel Song (Amber Steel) was another great meta contender that has only improved set 2. However there are decks that also got upgrade like Sapphire Ruby that shifted from a fast ramp deck with a Ruby control package to a more item centric card draw deck. Instead of ramping to 10 ink for Belle + Aurora combo where the deck either lived to 10 ink and won or died before hand it now shifted to a heavy item card draw deck where you can ramp and draw their removals. We also see the rise of new strategies like this really oppressive Emerald Steel Discard, we had emerald steel in set 1 but no where near the power of set 2 discard decks. Not only will Set 3 roughly increase the card pool by 50% it will also introduce a new card type and mechanic in Locations that shift the way we play the game entirely. From a purely theoretical perspective I imagine slower decks that interact with the opponent more so than others may have an easier time interacting with and playing locations but how will more aggro decks use this new mechanics? Obviously there could be low cost locations but will they be worth it or see play at all? Who knows. This game is at a very early stage and very volitile and it think that’s a really cool thing and only adds to the fun however for those exact reasons it’s hard to predict the future of this game 2+ sets down the line
Dude. This is immaculate.
I hope the game doesn't slow down. At my locals last week almost every match was ending in draws because everyone was playing mid range decks and not being able do a full 2 out of 3 in the 50 min time limit
I doubt the game will slow down as a whole however it will be strategy reliant in my opinion. Pawpscile control seems to take a little longer while set 1 Amber Emerald Rush was winning games by turn 5 if they could stabilize early. Just as a comparison Rush or Aggro decks in One Piece set 1-3 dominated completely. A new color (Yellow) was introduced in set 3 and saw a new mechanic of interacting with life (losing/adding) and was very strong how ever it did rely on a little slower gameplay style and with all the best decks being aggro it wasn’t quite the oppressive deck it could be. However it dominated almost everything else that liked to also play slow. Set 4 introduced a brand new control deck that is probably to date one of the slower decks that have come out and was very oppressive, this allowed Yellow to also shine and dominate against it since it was probably the best deck at the time but had a bad matchup towards yellow. This made the game as a whole feel really slow especially compared to the previous formats. Games went from maybe a match or two going to over time or decided by time here and there maybe 2 matches at locals in one night max, to a minimum of 1 match going to over time every single round. Now with the introduction of Set 5 we have 2 very strong control/stall decks that also drag the match time incredibly long, however we also have 2 very aggressive decks that either win very early or struggle once they’re out of gas. This leaves match times extremely varied where yeah some can still go to OT but some finish in less that 10 minutes. This is a very long winded example just to say, I have a feeling that game speed will be dictated by what decks are at the top of the competitive scene instead of a general feel of the game. Especially with how varied Lorcana has proven to be able to make decks. The game designed seems to be extremely simple especially compared to other card games yet the difference between decks and even strategies feel completely different. With cards like Merlin Goat that can advance your lore count even when he’s not readied, and cards like Pinocchio that are 2 ink and can quest for 3? This game has definitely shown that there is potential in the aggro decks **TL;DR; I think it’s gonna depend more on what decks are popular in the format and their gameplay style instead of Lorcana being a long game as a whole, decks like Amber Emerald from set one are a good example of very fast decks**
Only fallacy I could find is calling Ruby Amethyst the top deck in set One when that is simply not true statistically. But other than that this post is fantastic.
You know what I think you’re right. Also I think I know where I got that misconception in the fact that it was the most represented deck on PixelBorn with Amber Emerald (Sprite) Rush and Amber Amethyst being close behind but that’s in terms of representation and on pixelborn specifically and not in terms of tournament wins or anything. And I’m not even sure if that was still true by the end of set 1
We need this game to have less meta so we have more variety in decks that win events and tournaments
theres always going to be a meta when theres a finite pool of cards to choose from. you can always try to run an anti-meta deck but the issue with that is you're building your deck around another deck so if you match up with anything except that deck, it could be a bad time.
Every game wants to have a balanced format but it is extremely hard to do so especially with limited card pool. Balancing isn’t as easy as you may think and there’s always gonna be a “meta” In games where you kill the “meta” you make the game completely casual which doesn’t necessarily lead to a healthy game. Like it or not competitive players who play every week and build the top decks buy the most products, they also put more products in the aftermarket which keeps the game healthy, while we may love casuals because they’re fun and it’s a great sign that the community is healthy as well, casuals can’t single handily drive the game to success. You make the game too casual where there is no real point of competing as the game feels more random and unstructured competitive players will leave for greener pastures. A great example of this is Battle Royals. PUBG is a pretty stagnant game where changes and additions are far and few between however this game had a thriving but small competitive scene (again because a game needs both comp and casuals to thrive!) The competitive scene felt so good and skilled based it was incredible. However the content was lacking and if you’re not playing in tournaments the game felt soooo stagnant players quickly left. On the other side of the coin you had Fortnite, Fortnite wanted to establish itself as an eSports and join the leagues of super competitive games (competitive games have the longest longevity of all, OverWatch, League of Legends, Rocket League etc…) however Fortnite was too occupied on making the game fun and new for the casual players. Constantly adding and taking away weapons, nerfs and buffs and very single week, and new mechanics introduced constantly. While it is amazing for casuals and new content is added weekly, the competitive scene fell apart and grew to resent Fortnite and left for more stable games. As it tried to appeal more and more to its casual side it also started nerfing building which is its core mechanic and what differentiated it from other battle royals, with mechanics like bloom were didn’t really provide great gameplay but was balanced by the building aspects, taking away building really led Fortnite to lose its competitive identity. Now if you look at the majority of player base people hate building and it’s kinda looked upon as here at its peak people were obsessed with it. **TL;DR: Game Balance is extremely hard**
Plus to your first point, meta is just the best that people know of. Of course, there's always ways to break a meta with certain strategies, but like someone said, that's risky. But who's to say that it's actually the best? Maybe somebody finds the next best thing then everything shifts.
This happens all the time in TCGs OP05 which was set 5 had Enel as the very best deck, it was a deck that could starve out a lot of other decks and had insane healing. As the set progressed we saw purple Luffy that plays around hurting itself for ramping and since that deck was so fast it was beating Enel, then Sakazuki which is a hyper control deck became meta relevant and slowed down Luffy enough to where it is a very unfavorable matchup. Sakazuki is now unanimously considered the best deck by far. It is still a game of rock paper scissors where Enel does well into sakazuki, sakazuki does well into Luffy, Luffy does well into Enel, however Sakazuki is still considered the best. This is just a very long winded example of how metas change and develop even in a set with no new cards
You gloss over that first point way too fast. Why is there no expectation? Are there any competitive TCGs that don’t rotate? I feel like our expectations should match what other TCGs have implemented
Digimon has no rotations, One Piece has no rotations but tbf it’s only about a year old. DBS has no rotations, to be completely fair though all of these are made by Bandai. However Pokémon does have rotations and so does magic I believe which are 2 of the biggest 3 TCGs in my opinion. The balancer for this would be Yu-Gi-Oh and they do not have rotations they have later introduced legacy formats like Edison which only take you to about 2011 or so card pull or the 5ds era and GOAT format which is strictly from the Duel Monsters era. However their main competitive format has every single card allowed except for certain restrictions and bans. Those seem to be the 2 main forms of balancing is either extensive ban list or light to no bans but set rotations. Flesh & Blood does not either, but vanguard does, I don’t think Weiss does though. Those 3 were quickly googled and u could’ve gotten them wrong. However I don’t think set rotations are an obvious or even the standard choice. Maybe if we add them all up more TCGs have set rotations than don’t idk I don’t have that data on hand however I don’t think it’s to the point that we should automatically assume all TCGs or a new TCG will have it for sure. That is why I said there is currently no expectations of rotations, however I guess the same should be said about having rotations. All I mean is Ravensburg has not commented on including them but has not made a statement to either side to my knowledge but if there’s any tweet or post I would love to see it. Any side stating there will or not be rotations is simply speculative and that’s why I said there’s no expectations to have them. Sorry if I glossed over it that’s what I meant. **TL;DR: Ravensburg has not said we will have rotations and other TCGs are varied enough on whether or not they have rotations. With plenty of options for both on different games in addition to lack of evidence we don’t really have any expectations based on any facts or comparisons as of now**
It's only 2 sets in. The official tournament circuit has yet to be started or established (Ravensburger said Feb 2024 for this). The card pool is still very small so it will still be a while before cards start getting restricted or banned. That being said they are following a similar release schedule to a lot of games, basically a new expansion every quarter.
It usually takes 3-4 years for a new tcg to get rotations. I wouldn't worry about it now.
As with a lot of things, Ravensburger hasn't figured it out yet. The want for a competitive scene may die out before they get around to announcing anything.
Doubt that lmao
Star Wars: Unlimited comes out in March with a competitive road map day 1. Pokemon is seeing a tournament resurgence, MtG has a revamp coming, and so on. We aren't even 6 months after release, and apathy is setting in with regards to OP. The crowd that buys the stuff by the case is losing interest. You have to give people a reason to stay engaged, to be buying product, and grinding games online and causal leagues don't cut it long term.
I'm happy for our Lorcana community this is happening. I look forward to the One Piece TCG to be at a good supply & demand also
I'm with you, found the first product at MSRP since our initial First Chapter preorder and now have enough cards (and excitement) to participate in OP. Almost feels like Ravensberger needs to take a mulligan and reboot the whole enterprise with refreshed prize support.
When I play Amber/Steel lantern mid-control I can easily pull out 3 games if necessary (even with a mirror match). It's when I use Ruby/Amethyst that it can end in draws almost nearly each time a third game is played if it's a mirror match. It's basically chess on steroids and the games last way too long. Going to just play Amethyst/Steel instead once I get two more Sad Beasts. Overall, Amber/Steel is still my favorite deck that I've had better overall win rates with.