thereisnotry wrote:gholli69 wrote:I also feel like set rotation is not the best way to go, however I am also not really fond of errata either. Recently the decision was made to go to smaller sets each time, and with the huge number of characters we already have, I'm wondering if maybe an even smaller set list for each set might be a good idea. I don't know what the specifics of the printing process for our cards entails obviously and due to some issues in that area maybe it wouldn't make sense. However I feel like if the sets were smaller, say only 2 characters per faction with a 5 piece subset then the number of playtests per piece should increase and it also should slow the introduction of new game mechanics that need to be learned which seems to be a complaint for a few in the community. Personally I don't mind the number of characters being designed each set currently, but I can easily see how the argument could be made that smaller sets could and probably should lead to better quality of design and a smaller learning curve for new game mechanics.
I would be in favor of lower set-sizes too. We need to go with multiples of 18 for printing reasons, so I'd like to see things switch to sets of 36 pieces. That's approximately 3 pieces per faction with 6 pieces available for a sub-set. Easier on designers and testers and everyone else involved.
But it was a lot of work to even reduce the set size to 54 from 72, so I'm not sure how feasible it would be to shrink it to 36.
I think most all of us were on board for the change from 72 to 54 in general, it was just poor timing when it was proposed. We had already completed our 72 piece setlist for vset 7 when it was brought up and people were pushing for it. Since we already had our setlist and were started, we didn't want to cut back for that set, but were in favor of it after that.
I don't think some people appreciate how difficult it can be to create a cohesive and thematic set list. Lots of factors go into it.
I think 54 pieces is the correct size for a set. Less pieces than that would make it so there is less theme and cohesion. I also think designers would be more apt to make all the pieces top tier and power pieces (some designers already attempt that with 54 pieces). I'm a firm believer that there needs to be room for fun/thematic pieces, and only a certain small percentage should be aiming for a power 9 or 10.
The change I would promote is that I don't think we need 2 sets a year. We could proceed the way we already do, but only have GenCon releases. That way, we'd start just a little earlier on those sets, and have more time to PT. More importantly, we'd have more time to see how the previous set plays out. Right now it's a lot of guesswork. We have to predict what the last set will do before we even really see it in action.
There was a small group of people that were adamant that if we dropped from 2 sets to 1 set per year they'd lose interest and leave the game. Ironically, they left anyway shortly after that statement. I really feel the majority of players still active would be ok with that change.