Can it be effective to make mini decks of 40 or less?
Not really. The cost changes the most by far by the number of decks we print. The number of cards per deck matters of course (increments of 18 cards per sheet), but it is volume that is the major factor.
The cost to print 100 decks is about $25.00 per deck. To print 500 is about $8.00 per deck. The cost declines almost exponentially as the number printed goes up. I think we printed 600 or 700 of the first two decks on their first print runs and the cost was around $6.00 per deck.
With all the logistics, card developer time, etc it pays to do more cards per deck than fewer. I think the Star Wars guys actually did cards 90 per deck. But that starts to go the other way, and the development team literally runs out of steam.
Star Wars, and fantasy games in general, are easier to do than a historical game. They can add stuff forever (especially now thanks to Disney) and the stats are imaginary.
Having a unique back on every card also adds significant cost. But it also adds value because we have some buyers that get them to collect rather than play. And that helps the number of decks printed/purchased.
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care" Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship!
Cards banned is for another thread. I have covered it before.
Deck E simply took way too long. There was too much back and forth between devs and play testers, and especially the open board on the public picked cards. People wore out and would disappear for awhile and then come back after a rest. It was hard to move forward without most of the members responding (and voting). Then Shin started to fade last spring and disappeared in early August so we had to regroup, and I had to step up and put a lot more time into it again to get it done. We were exhausted and considered giving up. Two years is way too long to work on one project. It erodes morale for the finish line to be so far away. The first three decks were done in about 10 to 12 months each.
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care" Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship!
Personally, I think we should do the 60:40 split again, but add constraints on the public voting including not allowing anyone to vote for more than 3 units per nation and also requiring them to vote for at least 3 units for each of the "big seven" nations. Maybe also restrict the type breakout (aircraft, BB, etc) as well. The problem with a large vote is it doesn't take any account of deck balance. The other option would be to specify the number of slots per nation for the public vote, and vote for the units by nation. That would probably do the most to prevent skew and ballot stuffing.
For card development I would eliminate the public participation in play testing/review of the public cards. It takes way too much time and frankly, most of the comments aren't helpful. Very few people actually play test, they just criticize or try to push their own agenda rather than help with what is being proposed.
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care" Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship!
One of the issues we had with Deck E was trying to make a new unit unique. We didn't want to obsolete or duplicate existing cards (unless they were already obsoleted - like some Set1 miscosts) but there are now so many units that's very hard to do.
I'd be happy with a pool of 36 allied, 36 axis units from which the team picks at least 50% of the deck from those pools in a combination they determine.(no fixed quotas)
As for ongoing public assistance in development: A submission system, as a publicly selected unit is being readied for development. A discussion thread is set up, from that members of the forum may choose to submit a PM submission about the unit and how they see it being developed.
Last Edit: Mar 18, 2018 2:00:15 GMT by flakstruk: Claification and grammar
I prefer the 50/50 or 60/40 approach, that way forum members can have some input. Although for the record, I have been pleased with all of the expansion decks. Good job guys! As for fantasy ships, my opinion is this; if Shapeways makes the ship, we should have a card for it. Whether or not a particular ship is used, should be decided by the people playing the game. After all gentlemen (and Ladies), the whole game system is fantasy to a certain degree. It is predicated on the "what if" factor. I would once again like to thank all those involved in producing the expansion decks. There is a lot of hard work and dedication involved in these decks. Although I can't say that I like every card in every deck, I do feel that each new deck has improved the game. Keep up the good work guys.
If it has to be done in committee, let it be a small committee, without the peanut gallery standing on the sidelines wailing for bread, circus and 150,000 ton Mary Sues that never made it past the cocktail napkin stage.
If we say 36 allied, and 36 axis ... we just left out the minors. I think that there are people who enjoy the "fantasy" of having minors get involved with the majors.
I suspect one of the reason to have more cards, more ships/planes/subs, is to expand options and create greater variety. (Imagine how little fun this game would be today if we only had set 1 from RB.)
I truly believe that SWO and Brigs have expanded the game, and people have the option to "accept" their cards locally AND to "allow" their cards in tourneys here.
Großadmiral Swizzle
Browncoat by fandom; Cossack by blood; American by birth; Virginian/Husband/Father by wife; Libertarian by choice; Human by race; Christian by grace.
If we say 36 allied, and 36 axis ... we just left out the minors. I think that there are people who enjoy the "fantasy" of having minors get involved with the majors.
I suspect one of the reason to have more cards, more ships/planes/subs, is to expand options and create greater variety. (Imagine how little fun this game would be today if we only had set 1 from RB.)
I truly believe that SWO and Brigs have expanded the game, and people have the option to "accept" their cards locally AND to "allow" their cards in tourneys here.
No set or deck has had a perfect 36:36 split of Allies and Axis. There are way too many more Allied units to do than Axis. Generally the neutrals come out of the "Axis" half at minimum. The trick is to make sure the Axis units that do get in are good enough to compete with the Allied units. There isn't as much room for "scenario just want it because I want it" in the Axis lineup. The Allies will always have the advantage of greater diversity of choice, but there is so much overlap now that it doesn't matter as much as it used to anyway IMO.
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care" Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship!
The main thing for me on minors and "what if" units is we can't let them dominate a deck. If minors get much over 25% of a deck I think we start to negatively affect sales. "What ifs" ideally shouldn't go above 10 to 15% IMO. Going out of those bounds starts to really turn off segments of the community IMO.
Last Edit: Mar 18, 2018 16:25:25 GMT by weedsrock2
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care" Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship!
To what end? They are never ever going to to be tournament competitive and already have thier best units. To me "Nation X should get a unit" is flawed thinking. Id prefer the approach of "Unit X has a distinct history that would provide an interesting unit, in the context of thisdeck and the game at large"