The original post can be found here: http://www.councilofelrond.org/forum/vi ... .php?t=907
This thread deals with
Frodo wrote: Problem area 1: Current Players
Why are we losing them? What’s making staying in the game a frustrating experience?
C) TOURNAMENT SCENE FRUSTRATION/ DECK STAGNATION
What creates frustration? Some easy reasons to begin with are simply the lack of tournaments, and the lack of prize support (especially interesting, aesthetically-appealing prize support). Even a rankings system would be welcome, since it feels like a kind of prize support to those who have even a light streak of healthy competition in themselves. Unfortunately, prize support, though generous in some areas, has become mostly about booster packs and cards; and for some reason, rankings systems have gone the way of region cards.
But there is a more complex reason for tournament frustration. At the Worlds level, and any other national or local tournament with a decent attendance, frustration with tournament scenes is happening (when they happen) because of a lack of new deck ideas. The same strong deck types are consistently doing well, even as (thank god) some brand-new deck types are popping up and taking the first-place spot now and again.
But these rare new deck types are not enough. I believe that most people play Middle-earth for the creativity of it. They may still be competitive players (or they may not be… it’s important to remember that many game players are not competitive in the tournament-level sense), however, if they see the presence of a few uber-types that constantly win, these players feel mired by creative stagnation, because they look at their own deck and think, “This deck is working, therefore it isn’t fun, and if I want to play a deck that does work, I have to choose between one of these silly solitaire decks…”
This isn’t just a question of whether it gets creamed in worlds play or vs. uber players, but also if it just gets beaten too many times on GGCCG because too many players regardless of individual skill are using these same tested, nearly perfect decks. So the counter-argument of, “There’s plenty of interesting hobbit-lore decks to make, so stop complaining and just play those, newbs” isn’t enough. Deck strength matters. With a limited player pool, decks that work become necessary for fun. Not losing massively, not losing all the time, defines “work.”
Additionally, those who play MECCG for the sheer thrill of competition are also saying, “Okay, I get it, these deck types have been proved already!” Many such competitive players, including the ones who designed these Death Stars to begin with, are (respectably) standing far away from these decks now, even informing other players on how to beat them.
But it’s not enough. Now, the Council of Elrond could keep applying laissez faire economics theory and say, “Well, just let the players decide when too much is too much. We’re not going to interfere: we will not issue new errata, new guidelines. When players don’t want to play these decks anymore, they won’t play them, plain and simple.”
The problem with this approach is that it’s too slow. It leaves out the fact that when players don’t want to play against these decks anymore, they will simply stop playing altogether. I’ve heard numerous stories about local/national playgroups that have disintegrated in this fashion. Such a laissez faire policy also does not address the problem of creative stagnation… unless you are an exceptionally talented or exceptionally obsessive player who swears by what I’m about to describe in my next paragraph:
I am sure that some players won’t see the point to democratizing our game so that it appeals to more or even weaker players. Why not keep the game going for those who still appreciate it, and screw everyone else who doesn’t, who just wants to complain? There will always be a certain group of players who love the player-versus-player purity of the game, so much so that even if they were playing a similar deck, even the same deck, versus their opponent, they would still get excited about the match. But eventually, we will end up with roughly 8 players in the entire world who are eager to alternate between the same 4 deck types, who pin all their strategic hopes to metagame tweakings of individual hazard strategies or a few resource cards, year after year. On some level, this kind of Platonic competition sounds interesting—even to me. But I bet that’s not a level the majority of players care about. Worse, there is already a name for the science fiction scenario I’ve described above. It’s called, “Worlds.”
) is a long and fatiguing job. Most of these newbies are quick to lose their interest and abandon GCCG (and MECCG), since they tried it just out of curiosity. The teacher's frustration is easy to imagine... 
