PDA

View Full Version : Minimum cost 0 versus 1



Lochar
06-04-2013, 05:59 PM
If you guys are going to go with some cards not reducing below 1 cost, you need to do it across the board. You're never going to see every combo in the game. And it's going to hurt when we pull a Set 3 or 4 card and then combo it with a zero cost reduced card from Set 1. That'll be in Standard block play and it'll send you scrambling.

RECHiD
06-04-2013, 06:04 PM
I don't think the "cost can't be reduced to zero" is a hard rule in HEX.

It's more about the devs saying that they are watching for broken mechanics, and plan on implementing stops for stuff that they consider potentially broken.

Lochar
06-04-2013, 06:05 PM
Yeah, but they're not going to catch every broken mechanic during playtest. It's like the Lion's Eye Diamond. It sucked when it first came out, then became stupidly powerful due to later releases. They won't be able to check against all currently Standard cards for every combo.

alpha5099
06-04-2013, 06:25 PM
I don't think the "cost can't be reduced to zero" is a hard rule in HEX.

It's more about the devs saying that they are watching for broken mechanics, and plan on implementing stops for stuff that they consider potentially broken.

Cory did seem to indicate that there was a hard and fast rule in his interview for the Angry Joe YouTube channel. He may have been overstating things. But if there are situations where effects can't reduce to zero, they need to make it clear. Based on the stream, the Journeyman Technician can reduce things to zero; what about something like Spirit Dance or Dream Dance? Archmage Wrenlocke clearly imposes a "no zero cost" limit.

grey0one
06-04-2013, 06:55 PM
Actually, Cory gave an example where the card could be reduced to 0 when it's in the deck. I think they just don't know exactly how they'll do it yet. They're just strongly against anything that causes infinite combos that one shot opponents. It has to have some type of limiter on it, and by default, it's going to be that one mana. I think if it has something like "void after cast" or "reset cost to x" it'll go to 0.

MatWith1T
06-04-2013, 07:29 PM
My personal preference is a hard minimum of 1. It nips a plethora of future problems in the bud from the get go.
(and since Cory has said in interview that they prefer to ban cards if needed as opposed to re-word/rebalance them after release, I would rather this be the rule from the start and not see a lot of set 1 cards banned in the future)

RECHiD
06-04-2013, 07:32 PM
LED is a good example. I agree that there will likely exist combos and interactions that slip past the developers' minds, and I don't think they are naive enough to believe they will catch every last one. Once card sets start to churn out, and the card pool becomes too large to test every interaction, it is probable that they will make mistakes, like LED, and Dredge, and Flash Hulk, etc.

But their goal is to proactively look for these things before they become a problem. They have 20ish years of TCG history to draw upon. It should give them a good starting point (free spells/cost reducers are historically abusable, and they know that). I'm glad they didn't go the other way and say, "We'll just make the cards that we think are awesome, and then if broken combos happen, then we'll nerf/errata."

lamaros
06-04-2013, 07:48 PM
It's a stupid system.

You need cards to be clear and easy to read, along with the rules, in order for new players not to get turned off by technicalities. Having chop and change rules like this being card based are silly.

If they bugger it up just ban cards and learn from their mistakes. Then design better cards.

grey0one
06-04-2013, 08:34 PM
It's a stupid system.

You need cards to be clear and easy to read, along with the rules, in order for new players not to get turned off by technicalities. Having chop and change rules like this being card based are silly.

If they bugger it up just ban cards and learn from their mistakes. Then design better cards.

You do realize the examples of cards they're showing are not the the final product? It's a pre alpha that the devs are making up to show the core functionality. As we seen, it's missing a lot of attributes to being anywhere near clear. Expect the text to change or added mouse over descriptions to keywords. And it's most important to TRY to get it right the first time. They won't, but if you are not trying to foresee issues, then they're just phoning it in.

Moondancer
06-04-2013, 08:42 PM
The problem for me is if you don't take some risks and print some potentially abusable cards your leaving one whole player archetype in the dark the combo player. Its a combo players dream to utter the words, "I go infinite" That isnt to say the combo should be easy to assemble or rock solid but it should exist.

grey0one
06-04-2013, 09:07 PM
The problem for me is if you don't take some risks and print some potentially abusable cards your leaving one whole player archetype in the dark the combo player. Its a combo players dream to utter the words, "I go infinite" That isnt to say the combo should be easy to assemble or rock solid but it should exist.
Nope, it shouldn't, it is unfun for the person who can't stop that lucky combo.

BenRGamer
06-04-2013, 09:09 PM
The problem for me is if you don't take some risks and print some potentially abusable cards your leaving one whole player archetype in the dark the combo player. Its a combo players dream to utter the words, "I go infinite" That isnt to say the combo should be easy to assemble or rock solid but it should exist.

Yeah, that's exactly what they want to avoid. That's not playing an opponent, that's playing solitaire, as they described it.

You can have your combos, but you can't have infinite combos.

Tyrfang
06-04-2013, 09:10 PM
You can infinite combo with two dopplegangers and somehow get 3 time bugs through.

I hope someone makes a deck around that just to get it off once.

Technically you can do it with 1 timebug and two dopples if you have something that gives them speed.

caffn8d
06-04-2013, 09:11 PM
I don't necessarily agree that infinite combos need to exist. You can scratch that itch with strong combos that win without needing infinite recursion. That said, I think zero cost cards are fun as well. As long as you design things well you can have them and still keep things reasonable.

Moondancer
06-04-2013, 09:13 PM
Nope, it shouldn't, it is unfun for the person who can't stop that lucky combo.

By that logic i think counter spells are non interactive and unfun so they should take those out too.

BenRGamer
06-04-2013, 09:14 PM
By that logic i think counter spells are non interactive and unfun so they should take those out too.

At least counter spells still require interactivity.

larryhl
06-04-2013, 09:15 PM
By that logic i think counter spells are non interactive and unfun so they should take those out too.

This. Control decks shouldn't exist because you can't play what you want to.

/sarcasm

grey0one
06-04-2013, 09:20 PM
By that logic i think counter spells are non interactive and unfun so they should take those out too.

Limited combo'ing is like reasonable counter spells.
Infinite combo'ing is like a counter every turn from turn one. THAT is unfun.

ecaflip
06-04-2013, 09:28 PM
zero costs can be properly implemented IF caveats can be avoided in future card development. Native 0 cost cards are reasonably balanced, and there are cards that can deal with infamous cost lowering cards, something that comes to mind are the cards "extinction" and "murder"

lamaros
06-04-2013, 09:36 PM
You do realize the examples of cards they're showing are not the the final product? It's a pre alpha that the devs are making up to show the core functionality. As we seen, it's missing a lot of attributes to being anywhere near clear. Expect the text to change or added mouse over descriptions to keywords. And it's most important to TRY to get it right the first time. They won't, but if you are not trying to foresee issues, then they're just phoning it in.

Mouseover text is the exact opposite of what they should aspire to. It should be clear and readable on the card. Big walls of text, even if hidden under a mouse prompt, are poor design.

KingBlackstone
06-04-2013, 09:41 PM
This was mentioned already, but I think the "cannot reduce to 0" is supposed to be a rule of thumb to prevent combo loops (I think Cory referred to it as "degenerate play"). It's not a hard and fast rule that we have to know for general play.

larryhl
06-04-2013, 09:46 PM
Mouseover text to give the definitions of the keywords actually seems like a good idea though.

grey0one
06-04-2013, 09:56 PM
Mouseover text is the exact opposite of what they should aspire to. It should be clear and readable on the card. Big walls of text, even if hidden under a mouse prompt, are poor design.
Clear, simple, short language is something that should be aspired to.

It $@&$! Hard to do. Mouse overs actions and similar mechanisms help a lot to get people on the same page of what an ability does. without making walls of texts for keyword abilities like Speed. Especially if you have more than one keyword.

A general guideline is "pick two; short, clear, simple." Short usually gets the Ax.

lamaros
06-04-2013, 10:08 PM
Mouseover text to give the definitions of the keywords actually seems like a good idea though.

Agree on keywords, absolutely. Maybe a click instead of mouseover though, so you don't get it all the time when you already know it.

SacrificialToast
06-04-2013, 10:45 PM
It would be weird to have cards that explicitly say they reduce costs to a minimum of 1 like Archmage Wrenlocke, and then have cards that simply say they reduce costs like Dream Dance, but the minimum of 1 is supposed to be implied. They really need to go one way or the other on their text. Either specify all effects that have a limit on their cost reduction or make the limit a core rule and don't have it on any cards except as possible reminder text.

Gwaer
06-04-2013, 11:06 PM
Going to throw my lot in with the people that say it should be a rule that cards cannot be reduced to 0 cost, but that some cards can explicitly say that they can be reduced to 0 cost if that's the way you want to go with that particular card. Cory has said they're not going to change cards after release, so I'm a bit concerned with the answer about how the one card might have a lot of crazy interaction with future sets, and that they would keep an eye on it and fix it if it did. That doesn't fly with me, just make it 1 cost minimum.

larryhl
06-05-2013, 11:47 AM
For Cory not wanting 0 cost cards, they're sure "printing" a lot of them. Look at Grave Robbing from today's article. With the equipment, the cost of those troops you get to shuffle into your deck all permanently become 0.

Random360
06-05-2013, 12:22 PM
For Cory not wanting 0 cost cards, they're sure "printing" a lot of them. Look at Grave Robbing from today's article. With the equipment, the cost of those troops you get to shuffle into your deck all permanently become 0.

Those are PVE cards though, which they've said are going to be allowed to be a lot crazier than PVP cards.

Fleckenwhatever
06-05-2013, 12:36 PM
For Cory not wanting 0 cost cards, they're sure "printing" a lot of them. Look at Grave Robbing from today's article. With the equipment, the cost of those troops you get to shuffle into your deck all permanently become 0.

Threshold, not cost.

Lochar
06-05-2013, 12:37 PM
Threshold, not cost.

Equipment reduces cost to 0.

Fleckenwhatever
06-05-2013, 12:43 PM
Equipment reduces cost to 0.

So it does. Fascinating.

Fireblast
06-05-2013, 12:46 PM
Infinite combos are fine, they're boring when the guy is trying to sustain a loop (MtG Eggs), not when he assembled the pieces that loop (MtG Kiki Jiki + Restoration Angel)

Painter's Servant + Grindstone is infinite combo that's not wasting anyone's time, same for Rest In Peace + Helm of Obedience

~