With regard to gaming needs, mine actually demand that the game be playable solo. There simply isn't consistent enough play of non-that-other-CCG CCGs around here. When I don't have anyone to play with, I tend to sulk. With this, I can at least enjoy facing a simulated opponent, and keep my skill at the game from atrophying. What form it takes with 2 or more players, be it cooperative or competitive isn't as important to me, although I find myself leaning toward PvP simply because I feel that the nature of CCGs (and yes, LCGs, though I use the other term to categorize both production models in the same genre) lends itself particularly to competition, due to the motivation to build a deck your opponent won't be able to beat, without knowing what kind of deck he will bring to the table. Even if that's a correct assumption, though, I would like the option to play cooperatively from time to time.

David Spangler said:

I think this is a very important point, that I for one have lost sight of in the furore since Monday. They're trying to make the best game they possibly can, and so, whatever format it eventually turns up in, it should be a spectacular game. From what little I understood of the game as it was initially shown off, it seemed to be a curious blend of all the previous LCGs put out by FFG (although I've never played Cthulhu, so have no idea if any aspects of that game made their way into the design), so maybe they're going instead for something wholly unique that may well be a mind-numbingly awesome game that transcends these petty "I won't play it if it's co-op" / "I won't play it if it's PvP" arguments...

spalanzani said:

For me, it's not that I WON'T play it if it's PvP, it's that I CAN'T. I live in a mostly rural area and know absolutely no one who is both a) into Sci-Fi and card games and b) lives within an hour. So, if it becomes a PvP I can't justify buying it just to collect it. That's what I've been doing with Decipher's game for the last 16 years (collecting just to collect) and I can't spend the money just to buy something else that will collect dust. If it is co-op/solo with the option to play PvP I'm all over it. Otherwise, I will have built up excitement for no reason.

herozeromes said:

Herozeromes, have you tried Holotable? I can't 'cause I'm on a mac, but if I weren't, I'd be all over that for SWCCG (sorry for the off-topic)...

I. J. Thompson said:

Actually, yes. I only collect and play through Death Star II, and a lot of the new mechanics after that (Phantom Menace sets and the virtual sets) resulted in overpowered cards and an inability to play with people who weren't exclusively playing the same way I did. I spent a lot of time building decks (online) that consisted only of cards I already had and then all the opponents I went against were using the new virtual sets along with the Defensive Shields and I got killed rather quickly. So, I gave up after being unable to find other players who played the same way I did. In their rush to get Prequel stuff out, Decipher unbalanced (almost broke) the gameplay. Before that, someone with Premiere could still hold their own against other expansions.

 I'm hoping for a switch to pvp, the game has no interest for me otherwise.  But I realize that either way there will be a group of fans disappointed.

herozeromes said:

Darn. If I were on a PC, I'd totally play you. I was only interested in Premiere-Death Star II, also. 

I. J. Thompson said:

My PC isn't in working order either and I only have a Mac, otherwise. So, it's a double no-go. Oh, well :)

As many others have said, I seriously hope this means we'll see a non-cooperative card game.  If it is a co-op game, I won't buy it.  I already have several of those and don't need another.  If it's competitive in traditional CCG-style then I am much more likely to pick this up.