new expansion numbers of cards

[Vezuvan]

Yea well, I think it's always been fairly obvious that Wulven as a company isnt 100% commited on getting their entire livelyhood out of this game. In a way its a good thing and a bad thing. Good thing is that at least this game isnt heading towards the commonly known style of TCG of money grabbing. Every new set bringing better cards than the previous ones so that everyone is forced to get them. Like seriously, why has the TCG genre died? Mainly cause of the style how games like MTG is.

But yea, as a bad thing is the fact that everything takes ridicilously long time. Tbh most of the things that have been taking years now could've been done by 1 person working on it for 1 month full time. This game is more of a hobby that creates some extra income, or at least it looks like that. And I seriously can't blame them for that, going full commitment on a TCG is to say the least risky.

[Airact]

This is a direct quote from Kyle

"We carefully considered the idea of doing quicker, smaller expansions eg 50 cards every 1 or 2 months, then collecting them into a set to be printed for the physical game. But in the end we voted against this because it would ruin the meta and synergy with it changing all the time and be problematic for the serious competitive players interested in tournaments."

There you have it, no 50 card expansions. You guys will get your 150 cards every 2 years, enjoy!

50 cards every 1 or 2 months... Come on, nobody can believe that to be true. Even like 100 cards every 6 months would be a massive improvement.

Personally the reasons that turned me away from tournaments were the lack of players for bigger scale events and the lack of respectable price support for those bigger events. I don't think the frequency of new sets would change that.

[Gondorian]

This is a direct quote from Kyle

"We carefully considered the idea of doing quicker, smaller expansions eg 50 cards every 1 or 2 months, then collecting them into a set to be printed for the physical game. But in the end we voted against this because it would ruin the meta and synergy with it changing all the time and be problematic for the serious competitive players interested in tournaments."

What's the source for the quote, please?

[Expected Value]

I'm not convinced that new sets are significantly less relevant as the overall pool of cards grows, especially as another poster commented that the designers tend to release new cards that make previously weaker cards more viable. The game as it stands is pretty well balanced and wide open for a lot of different heroes, classes and cards in general.

One thing I have felt for a long time is that game designers aren't consciously milking enough value from each new successful keyword implementation, thus making the technical team have to work harder than they should. Not every card has to be wildly different. More could have been done with the defender ability without the technical team (whoever it is that writes the programming for the cards, game etc.) having to do a lot of new work, just as an example. That would probably make it easier to release new sets more often if it is in fact the case that technical issues sometimes slow down sets.

But even with that being said, I don't think a lack of frequent sets is all that damning to the game. It is refreshing to be able to play a game with a competitive attitude without having to know as many cards as one does in MTG, for example. It is also refreshing to be able to build competitive decks without spending much.

Probably the worst thing for the game could be bugs and lack of automated features, and I think it is always correct to prioritize those even before new sets. The new automated tournaments will definitely be welcomed, and I think the addition of Meltdown did a lot for the game as well. Back to what I said about the design team getting more mileage out of every successfully implemented keyword, it would also mean a lot fewer bugs to fix.

[ragosonos]

This is a direct quote from Kyle

"We carefully considered the idea of doing quicker, smaller expansions eg 50 cards every 1 or 2 months, then collecting them into a set to be printed for the physical game. But in the end we voted against this because it would ruin the meta and synergy with it changing all the time and be problematic for the serious competitive players interested in tournaments."

There you have it, no 50 card expansions. You guys will get your 150 cards every 2 years, enjoy!

1-2 months 50 cards .. that is 300-600 cards per year , 600-1200 per 2 years so I don't think Kyle said this lol .. makes no sense to me.

That's all what I'm asking for tho , big amount of cards in expansion if expansion will be every 2 years .. adding 150 cards will be so small amount that won't affect the meta make us soon bored.. and 2 years will destroy game I think Kyle messed up shattered fates but next ones would be quick as other games

[Demnchi]

What's the source for the quote, please?

I don't have the source right this moment but that was definitely said by someone at some point. I remember that specific phrasing of it. Granted, I don't see why that can't change even if it were said. Times change.

[Index]

Voted by who?

[D-Man]

I would be ok with 2 expansions every year at 200 cards each and without power creeps.
Every expansion should provide a way for the underused/weaker cards to be playable and not just new mechanics or cards with better stats.

[Magiczaba]

I don't have the source right this moment but that was definitely said by someone at some point. I remember that specific phrasing of it. Granted, I don't see why that can't change even if it were said. Times change.

Not trying to be an a**, but "said by someone" and "quote from Kyle" are two very different things.

[jacqui]

Given the current rate of expansion is roughly 200 cards every 2 years, it's optimistic to think that speed would increase without an increase in money flow. Especially when one considers the current expansion has been "released" to public with placeholder art for over a year, one can only assume there are major funding problems.