PDA

View Full Version : Why is there no competitive PVE - or - Why there is no competitive PVE



Pages : [1] 2 3

Hexgo
06-29-2013, 05:10 AM
Fellow Hexers (This includes Devs ofc.)

I played TCG's for years and I love it.
I also love the competitive part of it, in my case mostly drafting.
I do look forward to do this in HEX too.

Also:

I played MMO's for like ~10 years too (most of this time WoW).
I loved the competitive part in this too, but this was the PVE side!
Imho the PVE (esp. in WoW) was a lot more engaging and fun than the PVP
(tried that for some months too).

But with given conditions there will never be any competitive PVE as I see it.
The problems are the Kickstarter-Boni.
While there is no bonus for PVP (a free draft doesn't make you stronger in PVP)
as there is in PVE (esp. Raidleader, Lotus, also DC and GL).

If this is really the case, it's a gd pity, since that would be a hell of a lot
potential breaking away from the game.

Opinions? Or maybe i missed something?

Some very constructive posts about the matter:
Clarifications about this post and "competitive PVE"(link)
Proposal for how to enable competitive PVE (link)
Article on competitive PVE in World of Warcraft and how it applies to Hex (link)

Thanks guys and thanks Yoss for the suggestion!

Regards
Hexgo!

majin
06-29-2013, 05:25 AM
there will be 3 person raids in PvE, keep defense, arena and highlander mode for all dungeons (only 1 copy of non resource card is allowed) there will give all PvE lovers enough challenge during launch (might not be available on alpha and beta)

jaxsonbatemanhex
06-29-2013, 05:32 AM
Why wouldn't there be competitive PvE? I, and I imagine many others, will be gunning for potential raid and dungeons firsts as soon as they are released.

Hexgo
06-29-2013, 06:04 AM
Majin and Jax
Exactly thats what i mean. It would be awesome.

But how can it be competitive if a fraction of the player base has significant advantages over others (including me)?
There would always be bad blood like: "well you had a "raidleader" with you, that doesn't count".
(Like i said: advantage of the kickstarter-PVE backer)

keldrin
06-29-2013, 06:06 AM
Well, there will be casual PVP which you can setup to allow you to use PVE cards in, if you want.
So, yeah, you want to play your PVE deck against another person, you will able to. And, will be a lot of fun I think.
So, while not what you're looking for. Still something to play with.
Also, Like Jaxosonbatemanhex said, there will be competition for being one of the first through a dungeon or raid.
And, I kind of think there will be friendly competition among guild mates and friends to gather the cards/equipment for certain combos/decks first.

Hexgo
06-29-2013, 06:10 AM
Also, Like Jaxosonbatemanhex said, there will be competition for being one of the first through a dungeon or raid.

For that it would need a new mode, where kickstarter-PVE bonus would be automaticly ignored (also no Lotus or other Kickstarter-only PVE special Cards etc.)

keldrin
06-29-2013, 06:12 AM
Yes, well, in any TCG, if you spend money, you have access to more cards, giving you more potential options for deck builds etc.
Same thing is sometimes said about people who have several thousand dollars worth of MTG cards. The cards do not make you a great player, but generally the people who spend that kind of money are good. And they do have more options on deck construct than the guy on a much more limited budget.
My point being, someone will always be saying, that doesn't count because, you have more than I do. You played longer than me. etc.
And Yeah, I get that post kickstarter, unless they allow the sale of accounts, you can't ever get those advantages again.

keldrin
06-29-2013, 06:14 AM
For that it would need a new mode, where kickstarter-PVE bonus would be automaticly ignored (also no Lotus or other Kickstarter-only PVE special Cards etc.)

Actually, being able to turn off raid leader for a greater challenge in a raid would be fun.

Hexgo
06-29-2013, 07:18 AM
@Keldrin
What you say is absolutely true for TCG's Constructed, it isn't really for draft thou.
And imho that’s a good thing and I take it that’s the main reason why draft is so popular.

However, while high money investment in TCG's (constructed mainly) brings an advantage
lies in the its system, the PVE side doesn't necessarily need to inherit this "flaw".

HEX is a combination of TCG and MMO. I'm 100% it will be a fabulous TCG,
but I ‘can’t see it for PVE yet. Don't get me wrong, I bet it will be a lot of fun but
other popular PVE focused MMOs take a lot of action to protect competitive PVE.
This (as I see it at the moment) is hardly the case for HEX, which I think is a downside.

I just mean: It could have both at the same time! Wouldn't that be absolutely great?

To clarify:
I was always okey not being able to go into much constructed, since i can avoid
the money problem with other formats.

But if one guy came and would draw 8 instead of 7 cards in a draft I’d say: "no way man!"
:-)

Punk
06-29-2013, 07:43 AM
There would always be bad blood like: "well you had a "raidleader" with you, that doesn't count".
(Like i said: advantage of the kickstarter-PVE backer)

"+1 Card in the opening hand of all players grouped with "The Raid Leader" in non-tournament PVE content FOR LIFE!" - Kickstarter

This also insinuates that there will be Tournament PvE Content. Nothing confirmed at launch, but I believe I remember Cory touching on this subject very briefly in one video.

/thread

majin
06-29-2013, 07:56 AM
Majin and Jax
Exactly thats what i mean. It would be awesome.

But how can it be competitive if a fraction of the player base has significant advantages over others (including me)?
There would always be bad blood like: "well you had a "raidleader" with you, that doesn't count".
(Like i said: advantage of the kickstarter-PVE backer)

there will be wild west format PvP (not sure if there will be wild west tourneys) where you will be able to play with PvP and PvE cards on your deck. The raid leader won't have any advantage here

as for the lotus, they are tradeable so you can get them in the AH and because there are a lot of garden from the KS rewards, it will be very cheap. it will only increase in value if more PvE players start playing hex and the demand increases. you can start hoarding them (the lotus cards and not the garden) early on so you will have enough stash while they prices are cheap (based on the other discussions before about garden and the prices).

the raid leader+ is the only KS tier that has an advantage and only on raids (dungeons aren't considered raids).

the dungeon crawler which have a loot bonus only means they will roll twice on the loot table (not double the drop rate of a reward or double the reward). this just means the rest of us will farm dungeons twice as them but aside from that, no extra advantage at all (except for the 20 rare / legendary equips they will get out of the 1500 to 1800 equips on set 1)

hope this is the answer you are looking for. welcome to the community

Rycajo
06-29-2013, 08:22 AM
By competitive PvE, do you mean matches against other human players? Or do you mean competing for bragging rights on completing some raid or first to max level, etc?

Hexgo
06-29-2013, 08:47 AM
This:

(...)bragging rights on completing some raid or first to max level, etc?
You could also support that with all kinds of achievements, hard core modes etc. ofc i don't expect anything like that say within the first 6 months after launch. But I think this would be totally great!

@Majin
No this aren't exactly the answers i expected. Thank you anyway! :-)
and i think the double roll was a false statement from cory, actually it is the 100% loot bonus as statet on the kickstarter, isn't it?

@Punk
Thanks, I really didn't see that. But do you think there will be "dungeon/raid-tournaments" or is it just meant for the PVP-Western mode?

Yoss
06-29-2013, 08:48 AM
Anyone tracking "firsts" like in WoW will ignore RL bonuses if they want the community to respect the rankings. IMO, the RL bonus is there for farming raids (or trying alternate strategies) after you've beaten it the "real" way first.

Massabik
06-29-2013, 09:36 AM
I'm just hoping that the PvE experience is fun and engaging, and a little out there. I really have no interest in world/server firsts, especially if worrying about it detracts from the PvE experience.

Unhurtable
06-29-2013, 09:38 AM
Anyone tracking "firsts" like in WoW will ignore RL bonuses if they want the community to respect the rankings. IMO, the RL bonus is there for farming raids (or trying alternate strategies) after you've beaten it the "real" way first.

What stops people from farming it with RL bonuses before attempting it "legit"?

Stok3d
06-29-2013, 09:53 AM
"+1 Card in the opening hand of all players grouped with "The Raid Leader" in non-tournament PVE content FOR LIFE!" - Kickstarter

This also insinuates that there will be Tournament PvE Content. Nothing confirmed at launch, but I believe I remember Cory touching on this subject very briefly in one video.

/thread

brilliant. I never picked up on this. Thank you for stating :)


Anyone tracking "firsts" like in WoW will ignore RL bonuses if they want the community to respect the rankings. IMO, the RL bonus is there for farming raids (or trying alternate strategies) after you've beaten it the "real" way first.

There is no "tracking"--there will achievements. Achievements do it automatically. RL Bonus or not, the achievement will make it a moot topic.

Hatts
06-29-2013, 10:31 AM
Anyone tracking "firsts" like in WoW will ignore RL bonuses if they want the community to respect the rankings. IMO, the RL bonus is there for farming raids (or trying alternate strategies) after you've beaten it the "real" way first.

I disagree, how do you keep track of this? There will be other PvE buffs available, do you exclude these too? What about equipment? How do you know what a group ran a raid with? Are raid leaders automatically disqualified?

I don't see the distinction between beating a raid and beating a raid with buffs. They are all part of the game and I don't know how you tell if it's been beat the 'real' way.

Punk
06-29-2013, 10:41 AM
@Punk
Thanks, I really didn't see that. But do you think there will be "dungeon/raid-tournaments" or is it just meant for the PVP-Western mode?

I think there will be zero PvE Tournaments at launch, but that they will add some to the game within the first few months. Since PvE is the F2P side of the game, and will have a significantly larger player-base, I think they will wait until their system is running and stable to ensure they can efficiently run Tournaments on a much larger scale than PvP.

Vorpal
06-29-2013, 11:31 AM
Majin and Jax
Exactly thats what i mean. It would be awesome.

But how can it be competitive if a fraction of the player base has significant advantages over others (including me)?

I don't understand you. In every competitive sport, some people have advantages over others.

Some people having advantages in no way means it's not competitive.

There will always be informal player competition to get world firsts on new raids, just like in WOW, or see how few people you can use to take down a boss, etc.

I don't recall anyone ever saying "Hey, your world first didn't count because you guys have been playing together as a guild longer, have a larger pool of skilled main tanks, and have better gear!"

Unhurtable
06-29-2013, 11:56 AM
I don't understand you. In every competitive sport, some people have advantages over others.

Some people having advantages in no way means it's not competitive.

There will always be informal player competition to get world firsts on new raids, just like in WOW, or see how few people you can use to take down a boss, etc.

I don't recall anyone ever saying "Hey, your world first didn't count because you guys have been playing together as a guild longer, have a larger pool of skilled main tanks, and have better gear!"

In every competitive sport, no specific players / teams have mechanical / rule-based advantages over others. In every competitive sport at the moment, all players / teams play under the same rules. No team has an inherent advantage over the other, but one player / team will have the advantage that comes from being better at the sport.

If you had a specific guild that had "raid bosses has 10% less health" they would never be listed in any legitimate WoW PvE ranking because it would not be fair to the other guilds.

Lastly, there was actually a case of something like this in Rift before the expansion. Infernal Dawn (the last raid before the expansion) had a final boss that was exploitable. The guild that actually did it first used this exploit to defeat the boss, but the "world first" was rewarded to another guild that did it without using the exploit (not only from the community, but the devs acknowledged that the second guild was the first guild to down the boss legitimately). Fortunately, these two attempts were not long in between which allowed the first guild to actually "rank", because if they would've been let farming the final boss (which dropped the best gear) for a while before attempting the boss "legit" I would guess they wouldn't even be ranked by the community.

Rycajo
06-29-2013, 12:13 PM
Good thing players will have the option to disable the Raid Leader bonus. It makes sense to turn that off, unless the community accepts this as a legitimate boon granted by the game creators.

But what about the guild master bonus? Would a guild need to turn off this XP bonus for the entirety of their play for any achievement to be legitimate? Seems to me that most guilds will have this bonus until the game becomes huge, so perhaps it isn't a big deal.

Aradon
06-29-2013, 01:51 PM
As others have said, the playing field will never be level; other players will always have more cards & money to throw at a problem, or more time to practice, or more free time at launch, etc.

Also, someone else remarked that DCs do not get double the loot, just double the rolls. I believe this statement was incorrect- each roll corresponds to loot that is dropped. You get twice the rewards from dungeons, because you roll twice. It doesn't roll twice and take the higher, just rolls twice and takes both. At least, that's what it sounded like to me.

ossuary
06-29-2013, 02:07 PM
As others have said, the playing field will never be level; other players will always have more cards & money to throw at a problem, or more time to practice, or more free time at launch, etc.

Also, someone else remarked that DCs do not get double the loot, just double the rolls. I believe this statement was incorrect- each roll corresponds to loot that is dropped. You get twice the rewards from dungeons, because you roll twice. It doesn't roll twice and take the higher, just rolls twice and takes both. At least, that's what it sounded like to me.

Correct. Two rolls, equalling two rewards. And slightly higher chances (statistically speaking) of walking away with something rare from the loot table, since you're rolling on it twice instead of once.

Kietay
06-29-2013, 02:13 PM
There will be competitive PvE. At least as far as PvE goes. No PvE is actually competitive in the same sense that PvP is. Which is why it gets a lot less attention because its a whole lot more silly. But it will be there! No prizes though.

Hexgo
06-29-2013, 03:15 PM
I can't really see what you mean by silly.
However ofc things will never be on the same level, I agree.
But I can't blame people for just beeing better at something, can I.
The rules however can be the same for everyone like Unhurtable pointed out.

I have some PVE advantages myself with the Kickstarter (incl. the Lotus).
But if there would be anything like competition in PVE i'd like a mode to ignore
all of this, if it gets accounted for.

I can see the problem that people can buy every card on the AH if they so desire.
Making loot account bound would take a trading card game ad absurdum ofc.
So that doesn't work.

But my suggestion would be to do it like other MMO's and with each new big PVE content
update render all PVE stuff utterly useless. It sounds cruel, i know, but on the other hand you don't pay real money for PVE cards what makes it legitimate.

That would also create the advantage/disadvantage of rendering PVP stuff useless for PVE too.
MMOs do this for good and it always was healthy for the game.
Doing this, every "season" would be a "reset" and also new players have a chance to play
in the tops (like in a draft).

Unhurtable
06-29-2013, 03:52 PM
As others have said, the playing field will never be level; other players will always have more cards & money to throw at a problem, or more time to practice, or more free time at launch, etc.

Also, someone else remarked that DCs do not get double the loot, just double the rolls. I believe this statement was incorrect- each roll corresponds to loot that is dropped. You get twice the rewards from dungeons, because you roll twice. It doesn't roll twice and take the higher, just rolls twice and takes both. At least, that's what it sounded like to me.

Mechanics / rule wise the playing field can be leveled. In our case this will most likely not be the case for competitive PvE. "More time to practice or more free time at launch" has nothing to do with how level the playing field is.

Vorpal
06-29-2013, 04:59 PM
In every competitive sport, no specific players / teams have mechanical / rule-based advantages over others.

Same thing in Hex.

Having better cards is just like having better gear. Everyone is still playing by the same rules.

Getting 10% exp is a complete non factor. You could do the same thing in wow with potions, IIRC. That's just a reward for killing the monster, doesn't help you kill the monster.

Anyway, some people have a lot more time to play than others and will be far more than 10% ahead of you in levels. That doesn't break the level playing field at all.

Erebus
06-29-2013, 05:10 PM
Vorpal, the issue is Raid Leader KS bonuses and to a lesser extent Dungeon Crawler bonus.

But I'm gonna say, that for world first and competitive PVE, it's not gonna matter. People do world first bosses in WoW using Green Gear, because for those high tier players its more about learning and overcoming the mechanics then about what bonuses they have.

I don't see Hex being any different. Raids will be about unlocking the strategy and creative deck building. RL and DC bonus might help, but not in a significant way. I think once you beat the boss, it'd be trivial to turn off your bonus, run it one more time and win.

Unhurtable
06-29-2013, 06:24 PM
Same thing in Hex.

Having better cards is just like having better gear. Everyone is still playing by the same rules.

Getting 10% exp is a complete non factor. You could do the same thing in wow with potions, IIRC. That's just a reward for killing the monster, doesn't help you kill the monster.

Anyway, some people have a lot more time to play than others and will be far more than 10% ahead of you in levels. That doesn't break the level playing field at all.

No?

A team with the Raid Leader buff has a mechanical advantage over a team without the Raid Leader buff, if there is a competition.

I'd agree that getting 10% exp is of very little importance in a race to world firsts, especially later when everybody is max level.

What does people having a lot more time to play have to do with mechanical / rule advantages?

sayuu
06-29-2013, 06:42 PM
Competitive PvE?

Is that where the carebears try to out hug each other?

With trophies for everyone??


there is already Competitive PvE in this game, its called Raids and Dungeons.

Wait, you meant people in competition against other people to get "first" achievements?

Why that is just another form of PvP. . .

Kietay
06-29-2013, 06:56 PM
Competitive PvE?

Is that where the carebears try to out hug each other?

With trophies for everyone??


there is already Competitive PvE in this game, its called Raids and Dungeons.

Wait, you meant people in competition against other people to get "first" achievements?

Why that is just another form of PvP. . .

I like this guy.

keldrin
06-29-2013, 07:34 PM
Anyone tracking "firsts" like in WoW will ignore RL bonuses if they want the community to respect the rankings. IMO, the RL bonus is there for farming raids (or trying alternate strategies) after you've beaten it the "real" way first.
Old McDonald had a raid.
E I E I O.
And in this raid they had a dragon
E I E I O
With a flame flame here
and a flame flame there
here a flame
there a flame
everywhere a flame flame
E I E I O

keldrin
06-29-2013, 07:55 PM
As a raid leader, I'm totally good with turning off my raid leader ability to gain achievements.
It will still help a lot to scout out how best to tackle the raid in the traditional way.
And like was said, for farming loot, and trying to take the raid down using less than conventional deck builds.

keldrin
06-29-2013, 07:59 PM
I guess another approach to that might be, if the achievement showed somehow, that the raid leader ability was used to get it.
And that would get replaced when you beat it traditional.
There's some that would love to get the achievement, even if it did show conditional.

Vorpal
06-30-2013, 09:55 AM
No?

A team with the Raid Leader buff has a mechanical advantage over a team without the Raid Leader buff, if there is a competition.

I'd agree that getting 10% exp is of very little importance in a race to world firsts, especially later when everybody is max level.

What does people having a lot more time to play have to do with mechanical / rule advantages?

I don't regard a group of people getting another card due to raid leader any more important than I do people getting another card because they leveled up their pve champions higher and unlocked some additional bonuses.

That said, that can be turned off, if you're really concerned about it.

Thelaasa
06-30-2013, 01:40 PM
You know, there is a really simple way around this problem. Just create two different "world first" tracking systems, one with all buffs allowed, which would basically be the first team to complete the content ever, and then one with no buffs allowed. That way, people that actually care about this can still have their shot at their own personal glory. Since this will likely be tracked by the community anyway, is there really any reason to not have both set up?

Unhurtable
06-30-2013, 03:34 PM
I don't regard a group of people getting another card due to raid leader any more important than I do people getting another card because they leveled up their pve champions higher and unlocked some additional bonuses.

That said, that can be turned off, if you're really concerned about it.


You know, there is a really simple way around this problem. Just create two different "world first" tracking systems, one with all buffs allowed, which would basically be the first team to complete the content ever, and then one with no buffs allowed. That way, people that actually care about this can still have their shot at their own personal glory. Since this will likely be tracked by the community anyway, is there really any reason to not have both set up?


What stops people from farming it with RL bonuses before attempting it "legit"?

This would include people who have the DC bonus (if getting loot from dungeons improves your chances at defeating a raid).

I'm not especially concerned with it, as I will most likely focus more on PvP. The only way around this problem (if we really want to create a system without inherent advantages for specific individuals)as I see it is by having a seperate realm without the KS bonuses.

The problem with tracking achievements (or otherwise) is that people could be branded as "uncompetitive" when they have simply done the raids with the RL bonus, even if they want to try the PvE competitively.

Yoss
06-30-2013, 03:34 PM
What stops people from farming it with RL bonuses before attempting it "legit"?
Nothing. I actually ranted about RL during the KS timeframe. RL is the only KS bonus that actually cheats the gameplay instead of the rewards. The other two bonuses are merely time savers that affect the rewards (GL and DC), not the play.


I disagree, how do you keep track of this? There will be other PvE buffs available, do you exclude these too? What about equipment? How do you know what a group ran a raid with? Are raid leaders automatically disqualified?

I don't see the distinction between beating a raid and beating a raid with buffs. They are all part of the game and I don't know how you tell if it's been beat the 'real' way.
If Hex can't figure this out, there will be no high-end PvE and/or RL will be MANDATORY to compete. Making a limited-edition, non-transferrable bonus mandatory to compete at the highest levels of PvE will destroy the entire MMO side of the game such that instead of a full MMO and TCG, Hex will be just another TCG, that happened to try tacking on a little bit of MMO flavor and failed. Cory's selling this as if it will rival WoW for the MMO side and MTG for the TCG side. That means they'd better get the competitive PvE part of this right.


I don't recall anyone ever saying "Hey, your world first didn't count because you guys have been playing together as a guild longer, have a larger pool of skilled main tanks, and have better gear!"
Unhurtable's post 21 covers this nicely.


But what about the guild master bonus? Would a guild need to turn off this XP bonus for the entirety of their play for any achievement to be legitimate?
The DC and GL bonuses are very different from RL because they do not alter the difficulty of the game in any way whatsoever. Instead, they give time-advantage for levelling and farming. Back during the KS, I argued that RL should give a loot bonus like DC rather than a mechanics bonus. Unfortunately, even if CZE agreed with me, they couldn't change it because that's the rules of KS: once you list it, you can't take it away or change it. Therefore, without changing the KS offer, which specifically said that RL does not apply to "tournament PVE", they should define "tournament PVE" to include your first time beating each raid.


There will be competitive PvE. At least as far as PvE goes. No PvE is actually competitive in the same sense that PvP is. Which is why it gets a lot less attention because its a whole lot more silly. But it will be there! No prizes though.
That is a condescending attitude. PVP is not inherently superior to PVE. If this is really a TCGMMO and not just a TCG with some extras thrown on, then the MMO side needs to be every bit as viable and competitive as the TCG side. I thought they actually talked about this in one of the articles, though I don't see it on the site any more. (Where are the oldest articles? May 15 was not the first one.)

(By the way, I don't expect to have time to be competitive on either PVE or PVP, but I recognize that you need to have the high-end in order for the masses to prosper.)


Vorpal, the issue is Raid Leader KS bonuses and to a lesser extent Dungeon Crawler bonus.
How does DC change the difficulty of the raid? RL is the only one that alters difficulty.


I guess another approach to that might be, if the achievement showed somehow, that the raid leader ability was used to get it.
And that would get replaced when you beat it traditional.
There's some that would love to get the achievement, even if it did show conditional.
Sounds good to me.

Rycajo
06-30-2013, 04:13 PM
What you are saying makes sense Yoss. Except, I still see Guild Leader as a bonus that will make it easier to first complete something in game. Dungeon Crawler will also expedite the process if specific loot is practically required to overcome some challenge. I know these bonuses don't actually affect the challenge of X raid while in the raid, but they sure can help one prepare for that raid.

Patrigan
06-30-2013, 10:57 PM
World of Warcraft uses the feats of strength to denote that you have a world first in a specific dungeon. It will be fairly easy to have the system track this with and without the buffs.

I fully agree that for something to be competitive, everyone should have access to the same level of power. This means that the competitive PvE should NOT allow for KS bonuses, since few people will have access to them.

now I see it mentioned that the DC bonus can make a difference. Let me be clear that in a TCG you don't necessarily have lineair progression in your gear. In an MMO the loot of a boss will usually have strictly better gear, allowing the boss to be easier the second time you farm it. However, in a TCG this is not necessarily true. The boss will almost never drop a card that is like your card but with more health, or something like that. As far as I can remember, the powerlevel of both PvE and PvP cards will be somewhat equal. The difference will mostly be in the equipment and how silly the card is. So cards will not get ebtter when more dungeons are released.

Here's what I am hoping for: Deckbuilding restriction achievements. For example: "Defeat random necrotic boss with a deck that contains at least 20 troops and only human troops." This way you can have multiple different World Firsts. Will you go for the fast down, or will you try to go for the hardcore mode achievements. Achievements liek that can also increase the demand for undervalued cards.

A lot can be done with achievements...

Unhurtable
07-01-2013, 02:39 AM
now I see it mentioned that the DC bonus can make a difference. Let me be clear that in a TCG you don't necessarily have lineair progression in your gear. In an MMO the loot of a boss will usually have strictly better gear, allowing the boss to be easier the second time you farm it. However, in a TCG this is not necessarily true. The boss will almost never drop a card that is like your card but with more health, or something like that. As far as I can remember, the powerlevel of both PvE and PvP cards will be somewhat equal. The difference will mostly be in the equipment and how silly the card is. So cards will not get ebtter when more dungeons are released.

While I agree with you in general, this might not be the case. If there is an artifact raid (most enemy decks consist largely of artifacts), then there will be a great advantage in having the DC bonus if there is a dungeon that drops artifact destroying cards. Even though the "Destroy target artifact" is not necessarily better than the "Destroy target troop", it might be cheaper to play and better fit for a certain raid. In WoW this would be equal to someone having a better chance of dropping resistance gear. The gear itself might not be better in general, but it might be better suited for a specific raid / encounter.

Patrigan
07-01-2013, 02:47 AM
While I agree with you in general, this might not be the case. If there is an artifact raid (most enemy decks consist largely of artifacts), then there will be a great advantage in having the DC bonus if there is a dungeon that drops artifact destroying cards. Even though the "Destroy target artifact" is not necessarily better than the "Destroy target troop", it might be cheaper to play and better fit for a certain raid. In WoW this would be equal to someone having a better chance of dropping resistance gear. The gear itself might not be better in general, but it might be better suited for a specific raid / encounter.

Even though I agree there, I can assure you that this holds mostly true in at most the first year of the game. After that? Well i'm sure there will eventually be a 2 cost "destroy target troop with cost less than or equal to the number of humans you control". but my friend will probably play the blue 4 cost "Gain control of target artifact". After several years of a TCG there will be so many iterations on a specific effect that this one new effect will barely be an upgrade and often might even be a downgrade in your specific deck. Yes, there will be moments where you will actually have an upgrade (otherwise, why are we doing PvE), but a TCG is such a strange beast, where even a deck full of common cards is able to beat a deck using only the rarest and most valuable cards, as long as the common deck has better synergy than the rare deck.

So even though I agree with your point, I feel that the impact of that will be a lot smaller than in a comparable situation in WoW (where a "double loots" power would be severely overpowered).

Vorpal
07-01-2013, 08:42 AM
What you are saying makes sense Yoss. Except, I still see Guild Leader as a bonus that will make it easier to first complete something in game. Dungeon Crawler will also expedite the process if specific loot is practically required to overcome some challenge. I know these bonuses don't actually affect the challenge of X raid while in the raid, but they sure can help one prepare for that raid.

The more exp and the more loot bonuses are complete non - issues. If you think those comprise an unfair advantage, then you think someone having more time to spend on the game is also an unfair advantage, in which case you will never be satisfied that the playing field is level.

Anything that simply saves someone time is not worth complaining about.

The raid leader is the ONLY KS bonus that doesn't fall into this category. However, what's the difference between a group of people drawing one more card than you due to the RL bonus and them drawing one more card than you because they leveled up their pve mercenaries or champions farther than you and started with an extra card in hand?

Nevertheless, if it IS a concern it can be turned off and is barred from tournament pve anyway so...I guess I see this is a non issue.

Jbizzi
07-01-2013, 10:29 AM
Who cares?

World firsts are nice and all but they are not going to be done because someone in your guild bought RL KS.

You act like life is Fair and Balanced (tm). People have advantages over you that you haven't even thought of.

Professional sports are not an example of fair competition. If they were, you would see a lot more white people competing outside of hockey and NASCAR (which isn't a sport).

People just want adjustments to anything competitive that gives THEM the advantage that they don't have otherwise.

It would be like telling black people that "hey you run a 4.3-40, you are not eligible to play in the NFL."

grey0one
07-01-2013, 03:45 PM
/scratches head
As long as there is at least two competitive people playing a game, it's competitive.

If you mean how well it will be supported to prove who's the best? That depend on how many users will like the format over others. I don't see pve as being the marque event, but CryptaZoic will throw its support with whatever the users back the most.

Will it start out that way? I think that they'll start out with the higher prize support and larger/more Tournaments for constructed and draft play. There will be small events for sealed, Keep, PVE tournaments, etc. as well. But expect that to change as cryptazoic gets some relevant feedback.

They may ban cards/account flags as they go along, but we really need to see how it evolves first. . No one has really done a lot in this combo of play types.

Unhurtable
07-01-2013, 05:20 PM
Who cares?

World firsts are nice and all but they are not going to be done because someone in your guild bought RL KS.

You act like life is Fair and Balanced (tm). People have advantages over you that you haven't even thought of.

Professional sports are not an example of fair competition. If they were, you would see a lot more white people competing outside of hockey and NASCAR (which isn't a sport).

People just want adjustments to anything competitive that gives THEM the advantage that they don't have otherwise.

It would be like telling black people that "hey you run a 4.3-40, you are not eligible to play in the NFL."

Your sports analogies fail on a logical level because they do not translate into the current subject. You are talking about racial differences between participants, which has no impact on what rules they get to play by but merely what stuff each participant CAN be good at (first you would have to prove that it has to do with genetics rather than culture / upbringing). The current discussion has to do with rules that differentiate between players. To use an analogy:

Imagine a new spearthrowing league has started up (lets call it New Spearthrowing League, or NSL) that currently needs funding. Interested spearthrowers are allowed to invest into NSL if they wish, and those who invest a lot during the funding period get an added 5% distance to all of their throws. Now, imagine you enter the NSL after the funding period and enter the next competition. If you have no previous experience in spearthrowing, you will obviously get crushed, but lets assume you enter a competition for beginners or people at your throwing expertise. You throw the longest of all in the competition, 12m. One person who was a part of the funding of the NSL threw his spear 11m, and since he was a funder he now won (since 11m +10% > 12m). The competition did in this case crown not the person who threw the longest but the person who threw very long but also funded the NSL.

This is not a discussion regarding "If I go 1on1 with LeBron I should be able to win around 50% of the time". This is about "If I score, I get 2 points. If LeBron scores, should he get 3 points since he is a NBA player, regardless of where he shot from?".

This is not about giving people advantages. This is more or less about taking away advantages that cannot be gained anymore.

Professional sports are examples of fair competition, because all participants play under the same rules. Someone has bigger/better muscles than you and can therefore do better than you at Strongman Competitions? Has nothing to do with the rules of the system. In this case, the normal rule is "Draw 7 cards when the game starts" that Raid Leaders gets modified to "Draw 8 cards when the game starts".

Life isn't "fair and balanced", that much I can give you. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't work towards the goal of making life fair.

AstaSyneri
07-02-2013, 01:15 AM
It's interesting how during the KS people were disregarding RL as a "valuable" tier and now there is an outcry how unfair it is. Hilarious!

Every raid is supposed to be a challenge, a puzzle of sorts. You as a team will try to gain every advantage on it that you can. Which will include the Raid Leader bonus, Spectral Lotuses, and all those nifty Items you get as a Dungeon Crawler.

Will that be necessary? Not likely. You'll be able to beat the Raid Bosses without these, it will just be harder/you will need a better crew to manage it.

I refuse to be chastised because I fully intend to take advantage of my RL tier. :P

keldrin
07-02-2013, 02:33 AM
Ehh. Wait til the general release.
Then we'll see forum posts about how the exclusive champions that are account locked, are a unfair advantage that can never ever be gained again. There may be other champions. but not those. And one or more of them, will probably be deemed to be really good for certain things.
There will likely be posts about exclusive cards, that are really good, and to expensive to buy. But, other than spectral lotus garden, we really need to see the rest of the cards, and do some playing to get a grasp of which may become really desirable.

Parzival
07-02-2013, 03:40 AM
Unhurtable, your sport analogy fails as well for a simple reason. In your analogy it is impossible for the guy without the spearthrowing buff to ever throw further than the other guy, no way, not possible, simple physics.

The beauty of a TCG is that your skill at building and playing a deck determines your fate. Yes +1 card in the open hand is a big advantage, yes +1 life a turn/avoid death is fantastic but will it break the game? I don't think so, it will be easier with the RL buff but with a bad deck/low skill they will just delay the eventual game over.

Back to your analogy, the non backer just has to train harder and eat four plates of pasta instead of three to throw that extra +10% but when he does, wow what an achievement!

As for the world first, look non of us are CZE but if I was in their shoes, the first time they release a dungeon, it starts in tournament mode, no RL buff allowed. There the first team to beat it takes away the bragging rights. Once that happen the dungeon reverts to non tournament mode (until they want to run another tourney of course).

keldrin
07-02-2013, 04:00 AM
As for the world first, look non of us are CZE but if I was in their shoes, the first time they release a dungeon, it starts in tournament mode, no RL buff allowed. There the first team to beat it takes away the bragging rights. Once that happen the dungeon reverts to non tournament mode (until they want to run another tourney of course).

That would work. And it kinda is a tournament to see who beats first.
Post world first though, if there are achievements for completing a raid. I stand by the idea that the achievement indicate if achieved with the raid leader ability, or not achieved at all, if using raid leader ability. So that achievements can be seen if achieved on a level playing ground.

Unhurtable
07-02-2013, 04:07 AM
Unhurtable, your sport analogy fails as well for a simple reason. In your analogy it is impossible for the guy without the spearthrowing buff to ever throw further than the other guy, no way, not possible, simple physics.

The beauty of a TCG is that your skill at building and playing a deck determines your fate. Yes +1 card in the open hand is a big advantage, yes +1 life a turn/avoid death is fantastic but will it break the game? I don't think so, it will be easier with the RL buff but with a bad deck/low skill they will just delay the eventual game over.

Back to your analogy, the non backer just has to train harder and eat four plates of pasta instead of three to throw that extra +10% but when he does, wow what an achievement!

As for the world first, look non of us are CZE but if I was in their shoes, the first time they release a dungeon, it starts in tournament mode, no RL buff allowed. There the first team to beat it takes away the bragging rights. Once that happen the dungeon reverts to non tournament mode (until they want to run another tourney of course).

Please tell me how it is impossible for the 2nd person to throw 12m when we did not specify muscle masses or the persons maximal capacity to throw spears? Given enough training and muscle building, people can throw 12m or longer. Regardless of each persons individual maximal capability, the rules remain the same for everyone. Once again, fair competition isn't "equal chance of winning", its "same rules apply to everyone".

"the non backer just has to train harder and eat four plates of pasta instead of three to throw that extra 10% but when he does, wow what an achievement". And what happens when the backer also trains harder and eats 4 plates of pasta instead of three but continues to throw less than 9% shorter than the non-backer? Both people exercise and train equally hard (assumingly) but person A continues to throw longer. Should not the person who throws the longest win in a spearthrowing contest?

Your suggestion is good, as it tackles the biggest issue (the RL bonus) while still enabling it to a certain degree (compare to a system without your suggestion).

Jbizzi
07-02-2013, 08:11 AM
Please tell me how it is impossible for the 2nd person to throw 12m when we did not specify muscle masses or the persons maximal capacity to throw spears? Given enough training and muscle building, people can throw 12m or longer. Regardless of each persons individual maximal capability, the rules remain the same for everyone. Once again, fair competition isn't "equal chance of winning", its "same rules apply to everyone".

"the non backer just has to train harder and eat four plates of pasta instead of three to throw that extra 10% but when he does, wow what an achievement". And what happens when the backer also trains harder and eats 4 plates of pasta instead of three but continues to throw less than 9% shorter than the non-backer? Both people exercise and train equally hard (assumingly) but person A continues to throw longer. Should not the person who throws the longest win in a spearthrowing contest?

Your suggestion is good, as it tackles the biggest issue (the RL bonus) while still enabling it to a certain degree (compare to a system without your suggestion).

Unhurtable, you are missing the point.

My analogy was to point out the differences between reality and theory craft. In reality there will always be someone better than you no matter what advantages you think you may have. Based on that principle, you will always feel that life is unfair somehow, that you weren't blessed (Re: given a KS Advantage) over your peers.

You will whine and complain about your disadvantage until the government passes laws to enforce others to stoop to your level as an appeasement. The population will stop evolving as fast because Darwin's Law doesn't mean shit anymore. We make our own rules. The world devolves to accommodate the masses and humankind implodes on itself as we wander around in an opiate like state for the rest of our days...


OK, so maybe that was a tangent or five, but my point was (and is): just be happy with what you have and are capable of doing without worrying about some insignificant "advantage" another has. Trust me when I say that the RL bonus that a very tiny percentage of the population purchased will "amount to nothing in the end." (Jason Mraz)

MatWith1T
07-02-2013, 08:55 AM
Just like WoW, the people who take this seriously will quickly come to a consensus about what counts and doesn't count - it doesn't make a lot of sense to try and pre-determine the rules for 'firsts' when no one has played the game yet.

There's plenty of people in WoW who have realm-firsts and world-firsts for raids that the larger community don't give much credence too because they were done using a bug, exploit, or killing a version of the boss that was quickly buffed/fixed in a patch. The hardcore PvE'ers do a pretty good job determining a baseline set of rules... and a lot of those guilds use bugs, betas, and buffs to practice on a raid before attempting to do the 'official' first kill, that's just fine.

The realm-first clearing of Molten Core in WoW for my realm was done using the fire-resist exploit from LBRS... it made for weeks of fun flame-wars on the realm forum. And ultimately, petty squabbling amongst guilds for the sake of e-peen is what makes PvE progression fun in the first place. /sarcasmbutnotreally

Vorpal
07-02-2013, 08:59 AM
Ehh. Wait til the general release.
Then we'll see forum posts about how the exclusive champions that are account locked, are a unfair advantage that can never ever be gained again. There may be other champions. but not those. And one or more of them, will probably be deemed to be really good for certain things.

Considering that the monkey guy lets you start with two extra cards in hand, all the whining over raid leader's blessing seems pretty trivial by comparison.

Unhurtable
07-02-2013, 09:57 AM
Unhurtable, you are missing the point.

My analogy was to point out the differences between reality and theory craft. In reality there will always be someone better than you no matter what advantages you think you may have. Based on that principle, you will always feel that life is unfair somehow, that you weren't blessed (Re: given a KS Advantage) over your peers.

You will whine and complain about your disadvantage until the government passes laws to enforce others to stoop to your level as an appeasement. The population will stop evolving as fast because Darwin's Law doesn't mean shit anymore. We make our own rules. The world devolves to accommodate the masses and humankind implodes on itself as we wander around in an opiate like state for the rest of our days...


OK, so maybe that was a tangent or five, but my point was (and is): just be happy with what you have and are capable of doing without worrying about some insignificant "advantage" another has. Trust me when I say that the RL bonus that a very tiny percentage of the population purchased will "amount to nothing in the end." (Jason Mraz)

In reality, there will always be someone that is the best. If the competition is fair, and that person is competing, then that person should naturally win. In the case of competitions that involve chance, the best person should naturally win most of the time (compared to other players). Yes, if you are not the best then there will always be people that are better than you. What does this have to do with mechanical / rule-based advantages?

Why would I use an evil force to serve me? Do you think I'm some sort of villain? Secondly, I have no idea what this statement has to do with the discussion at hand.

I've already stated earlier in this thread that I do not care that much about this. Jason Mraz just lost all credibility to me. He has no idea of what happens "in the end" and can therefore not give out meaningful insights into what will and what won't impact whatever happens "in the end".

Vibraxus
07-02-2013, 10:33 AM
It's interesting how during the KS people were disregarding RL as a "valuable" tier and now there is an outcry how unfair it is. Hilarious!

I was just thinking this. LOL

Patrigan
07-02-2013, 12:10 PM
Considering that the monkey guy lets you start with two extra cards in hand, all the whining over raid leader's blessing seems pretty trivial by comparison.

the thing is, people with RL can start with 3 cards, still an improvement over 2 ;)

I feel for the people that have no access to either, though... All exclsuives are a bad plan :(

Jbizzi
07-02-2013, 01:44 PM
In reality, there will always be someone that is the best. If the competition is fair, and that person is competing, then that person should naturally win. In the case of competitions that involve chance, the best person should naturally win most of the time (compared to other players). Yes, if you are not the best then there will always be people that are better than you. What does this have to do with mechanical / rule-based advantages?

Why would I use an evil force to serve me? Do you think I'm some sort of villain? Secondly, I have no idea what this statement has to do with the discussion at hand.

I've already stated earlier in this thread that I do not care that much about this. Jason Mraz just lost all credibility to me. He has no idea of what happens "in the end" and can therefore not give out meaningful insights into what will and what won't impact whatever happens "in the end".

Not to drag Mraz through this conversation because i was simply being funny when quoting him, but you seem to think that the RL bonus WILL matter in the end, which begs the question... "How do you know?"

You are making a huge deal about something so small and trivial that impacts even less. It just sounds a little Wambulance to me. The RL bonus was looked at by the community as the least beneficial of all the KS options. Still is as far as I know.

I didn't pledge into the $250+ tiers because they offered a person like me very little compensation. I don't plan on being highly ranked in PvP, I don't plan on needing extra dungeon loot, I didn't even care about the collectors even though that one (maybe Pro Player too) will have the most value down the road.

In other words, my feelings won't be hurt when someone gets world first OMGHAXXORS completed, I just don't care. People that are really in to the game and discovered that they could INVEST early and get an insignificant advantage over some others. Kudos to them, they should be rewarded.

You had every advantage they did but you chose not to take advantage, instead you either missed out or waited to long... either way, don't be too butthurt over it.

Unhurtable
07-02-2013, 02:26 PM
Not to drag Mraz through this conversation because i was simply being funny when quoting him, but you seem to think that the RL bonus WILL matter in the end, which begs the question... "How do you know?"

You are making a huge deal about something so small and trivial that impacts even less. It just sounds a little Wambulance to me. The RL bonus was looked at by the community as the least beneficial of all the KS options. Still is as far as I know.

I didn't pledge into the $250+ tiers because they offered a person like me very little compensation. I don't plan on being highly ranked in PvP, I don't plan on needing extra dungeon loot, I didn't even care about the collectors even though that one (maybe Pro Player too) will have the most value down the road.

In other words, my feelings won't be hurt when someone gets world first OMGHAXXORS completed, I just don't care. People that are really in to the game and discovered that they could INVEST early and get an insignificant advantage over some others. Kudos to them, they should be rewarded.

You had every advantage they did but you chose not to take advantage, instead you either missed out or waited to long... either way, don't be too butthurt over it.

How can I be butthurt if I barely care? Doing character attacks is not a good way of doing argumentation. It makes it seem like you can't actually refute what is on the other side.

I don't see why feelings have to be brought up all the time. Do they have something to do whether or not a competition is fair?

My feelings won't be hurt when someone else gets world first either. It's happened plenty of times before. I'm also for rewarding people who invested a lot into the game.

keldrin
07-02-2013, 02:54 PM
Considering that the monkey guy lets you start with two extra cards in hand, all the whining over raid leader's blessing seems pretty trivial by comparison.

It's a non-issue at the moment, because a large percentage of the current game population will have that champion. It will be when general release hits, and the number of people without, dwarfs the number of people with it, that you'll hear more whining about it.
:)

Yoss
07-02-2013, 03:08 PM
It's interesting how during the KS people were disregarding RL as a "valuable" tier and now there is an outcry how unfair it is. Hilarious!
Your "people" does not include me or any of my friends. I intentionally avoided buying, and talked my friends out of buying, RL because I think it breaks the game. (Post 47 gives a good analogy, though there have been plenty of other similar posts.) It's why I am happy with PP+DC instead of GK.


Every raid is supposed to be a challenge, a puzzle of sorts. You as a team will try to gain every advantage on it that you can. Which will include the Raid Leader bonus, Spectral Lotuses, and all those nifty Items you get as a Dungeon Crawler.

Will that be necessary? Not likely. You'll be able to beat the Raid Bosses without these, it will just be harder/you will need a better crew to manage it.

I refuse to be chastised because I fully intend to take advantage of my RL tier. :P
Of course you will, that's why you bought it, duh. However, if they can't figure out a way to make bleeding-edge-competitive PVE viable for non-KS players, then the MMO side of this game will be just a side-show and Hex will therefore (in my opinion) be a failure to deliver on its expressed intent of being fully MMO (while also being fully TCG).


Ehh. Wait til the general release.
Then we'll see forum posts about how the exclusive champions that are account locked, are a unfair advantage that can never ever be gained again. There may be other champions. but not those. And one or more of them, will probably be deemed to be really good for certain things.
Which is why I made a thread suggesting they be tradeable.
http://forums.cryptozoic.com/showthread.php?t=25694


There will likely be posts about exclusive cards, that are really good, and to expensive to buy. But, other than spectral lotus garden, we really need to see the rest of the cards, and do some playing to get a grasp of which may become really desirable.
This is indeed a problem, but not insurmountable. At least all these things will be available on the market, even if expensive. (But remember, a KS backer paid a bunch of money to get it, so that's not exactly unfair.)


As for the world first, look non of us are CZE but if I was in their shoes, the first time they release a dungeon, it starts in tournament mode, no RL buff allowed. There the first team to beat it takes away the bragging rights. Once that happen the dungeon reverts to non tournament mode (until they want to run another tourney of course).
Perfect! I've suggested this before. (However, I think you mean "raid" not "dungeon".)


Considering that the monkey guy lets you start with two extra cards in hand, all the whining over raid leader's blessing seems pretty trivial by comparison.
Except that RL still gets to have a champ/merc in addition.

I applaud all of Unhurtable's posts in these last five pages or so, both for expressing "my" side of the argument well, and for maintaining a (mostly) pleasant manner in the face of occasional flames.

keldrin
07-02-2013, 03:35 PM
Well, I'm all for mercenaries being tradable.
And I fully support the idea of achievements/world firsts only being if raid leader is turned off.
As for farming raids for equipment. I don't see it being a lot different than using DC for extra loot in dungeons. It just means more successes per attempt, thus less time spent to get the desired drops.

Patrigan
07-02-2013, 11:24 PM
In my opinion, I would like world firsts to be with your own hero and not with a mercenary. I can already see how some very specialized mercenaries will eventually break dungeons/raids.

I really love the idea of dungeon/raid tournaments, where players try to take the least amount of time possible to complete it. CZE can put deckbuilding restrictions on it (for example, no RL Blessing, no Buffs, no Mercenaries). This will create a very specialized Dungeon/Raid. A great participation/winner reward would be a mercenary.

Ideally, they run these events for a whole year, weekly or even daily. Each event for a whole year would hand out the same exclusives. At this point, you don't need the normal PvE to have restrictions, the PvE tournaments (not wild wild west) will then make up the Competitive PvE.

For some additional ideas, they can look at Path of Exiles and their races. They introduce the same game everyone knows, but with some twists. The person who earns the most experience in the set amount of time wins the race. A good implementation example would be a dungeon where all AI controlled troops get extra attack and/or health. Or maybe they all have a power that does somethign special. The possibilities are endless and I really hope they do something like this.

keldrin
07-02-2013, 11:55 PM
Patrigan, the idea of limiting exclusives for such a attempt sounds like fun. I would say no lotus either, because, even if they are possible to get, potentially being needed to make the raid or dungeon attempt like that is still a bit unfair for someone without them.
I can even see the idea, of such a thing, being only with currently available cards. So, no exclusive cards. No Raid leader blessing. And even no currently out of print/circulation cards. That would come close to leveling the playing field for such a achievement.

Aldazar
07-03-2013, 12:09 AM
Your "people" does not include me or any of my friends. I intentionally avoided buying, and talked my friends out of buying, RL because I think it breaks the game. (Post 47 gives a good analogy, though there have been plenty of other similar posts.) It's why I am happy with PP+DC instead of GK.

I'm somewhat amused that you acknowledge it is a great benefit to have RL, but you are so self-righteous that you not only (supposedly) boycott the tier itself on principle, but you even harassed your friends into passing up what you have admitted is a major benefit...

Hatts
07-03-2013, 04:23 AM
Patrigan, the idea of limiting exclusives for such a attempt sounds like fun. I would say no lotus either, because, even if they are possible to get, potentially being needed to make the raid or dungeon attempt like that is still a bit unfair for someone without them.
I can even see the idea, of such a thing, being only with currently available cards. So, no exclusive cards. No Raid leader blessing. And even no currently out of print/circulation cards. That would come close to leveling the playing field for such a achievement.

Don't forget no equipment and a pvp champion for a truly level playing field. Or what about starter deck only? Maybe the raid boss can analyze your gear and cards and buff / nerf you accordingly to the average power level so it's the most fair. Everyone takes a trip to the handicapper general before the raid.

Patrigan
07-03-2013, 04:27 AM
Don't forget no equipment and a pvp champion for a truly level playing field. Or what about starter deck only?

Well, you still want it to feel like PvE, equipment is key there. Don't forget everyone has access to Equipment and PvE heroes, accessibility is the reason to ban certain things to create a level playingfield.

Starter Decks have the problem that you can't change the deck to match the challenges ahead.

keldrin
07-03-2013, 06:14 AM
Don't forget no equipment and a pvp champion for a truly level playing field. Or what about starter deck only? Maybe the raid boss can analyze your gear and cards and buff / nerf you accordingly to the average power level so it's the most fair. Everyone takes a trip to the handicapper general before the raid.
Well, I understand your point. My point is, that the problem of a non-level playing field between kickstarter backers, and post general release players doesn't stop or start with the Raid Leaders Blessing. If this is the serious intent behind this thread, you have to look at everything.
If this game takes off like it has the potential to do, 5 years from now, there may be a million players. So, the number of kickstarter exclusives, compared to the number of potential players, may be very small. To the point, of potentially being almost unattainable. I'll go a step further, some of the cards and equipment and potentially attainable champions, may go out of circulation, and not come back. And while their numbers will be higher than the kickstarter exclusives, they may again be very hard and expensive to obtain the most sot after ones. So, to a new player on a potentially limited budget, those items are exclusives they may never obtain.
Thus my comment about only equipment, cards, and mercenaries currently in circulation. That would level the playing field giving people a relatively equal chance to get the achievements. Especially world firsts. Obviously, the newish players would have to play a lot, to get the currently available cards/equipment, and level their character/champion to have a real chance. And, likely have to drop some real world currency into getting the PVP cards they need as well.

AstaSyneri
07-03-2013, 06:47 AM
Patrigan, the idea of limiting exclusives for such a attempt sounds like fun. I would say no lotus either, because, even if they are possible to get, potentially being needed to make the raid or dungeon attempt like that is still a bit unfair for someone without them.
I can even see the idea, of such a thing, being only with currently available cards. So, no exclusive cards. No Raid leader blessing. And even no currently out of print/circulation cards. That would come close to leveling the playing field for such a achievement.

I rarely am of a different opinion than my guild mate here. In this case I am, radically.

Limiting exclusive does not sound like fun at all. They are for playing. If you didn't get the RL tier during KS, butter up somebody who did, or toughen up and make a deck that beats the challenge anyway. It certainly will be possible.

Beating a TCG challenge (and I have some experience at that, from both sides, lol) is a lot less homogenous than a WoW raid (I have less experience there, admittedly). Meaning that the randomness is a lot higher, hence the challenge itself will be designed to be more lenient than a WoW raid challenge.

This in turn means you have a lot better chance beating the Hex raid by analyzing the challenge and building good decks. This is essential!

The Raid Leader tier is just a crutch to improve the chances (more health, 1 time damage avoidance, +X cards in your first hand). You don't need any of those to beat the raids and it will not help you much if you don't have a good battle plan.

Personally I don't have much time for gaming, but I want to experience all the PvE content. Of course I want to make use of my AstaSyneri's Blessing. Players from the KS should in no way be penalized for having the cards. That would be like penalizing for winning a powerful Legendary card and disallowing it in regular PvP play.

World's first will be won by good players who spend more time at the game than is good for them ;-), regardless of whether they have RL bonuses or not.

Patrigan
07-03-2013, 06:51 AM
I rarely am of a different opinion than my guild mate here. In this case I am, radically.

Limiting exclusive does not sound like fun at all. They are for playing. If you didn't get the RL tier during KS, butter up somebody who did, or toughen up and make a deck that beats the challenge anyway. It certainly will be possible.

Beating a TCG challenge (and I have some experience at that, from both sides, lol) is a lot less homogenous than a WoW raid (I have less experience there, admittedly). Meaning that the randomness is a lot higher, hence the challenge itself will be designed to be more lenient than a WoW raid challenge.

This in turn means you have a lot better chance beating the Hex raid by analyzing the challenge and building good decks. This is essential!

The Raid Leader tier is just a crutch to improve the chances (more health, 1 time damage avoidance, +X cards in your first hand). You don't need any of those to beat the raids and it will not help you much if you don't have a good battle plan.

Personally I don't have much time for gaming, but I want to experience all the PvE content. Of course I want to make use of my AstaSyneri's Blessing. Players from the KS should in no way be penalized for having the cards. That would be like penalizing for winning a powerful Legendary card and disallowing it in regular PvP play.

World's first will be won by good players who spend more time at the game than is good for them ;-), regardless of whether they have RL bonuses or not.

It's not just about world firsts, though, it's about making PvE competitive. Imagine they had offered a tier for +1 card in starting hand during PvP matches, or one extra booster in sealed matches. This is basically the same.

Hatts
07-03-2013, 08:00 AM
@ Keldrin I was making an obscure reference to the Vonnegut short story 'Harrison Bergeron'. It's a satire that raises a serious question concerning desirability of social equality and the extent to which society is prepared to go to achieve it (I copied that bit from Wikipedia.) Athletic people get weights put on them, beautiful people wear masks, smart people have ear pieces that emit static randomly to interrupt thought, all in the pursuit of fairness / a level playing field.

As to how it's relevant to this discussion, let me just say it's a slippery slope that starts at raid leaders blessing and ends with no equipment starter deck runs. I don't know that there is a sane place to stop anywhere on the slope, which is why I believe there should be no restrictions at all.

Before anyone jumps on me, yes I understand that the raid leaders blessing is not obtainable in game, and everything else (with enough time and money) is. I still don't think it's worth making a distinction, there will always be people with varying levels of advantages.

Vorpal
07-03-2013, 08:07 AM
I still don't see this as a big problem.

The naturally occurring and accepted imbalances, in my opinion, greatly exceed the imbalances caused by the raid leader.

If we are willing to accept that a world first obtained by someone with a deck of all legendary cards over a world first obtained by someone who had nothing but commons, why would we balk at a world first obtained because of +1 card?

*Especially* as the champs/mercs can give you up to +2 cards (and I see no reason to believe that monkey man is going to be the only one that does this)

There's literally no point acting like +1 card is the end of the world when there are ways to get +2 cards that are *also* exclusive *particularly* when the raid leader blessing is shared with every account grouped with the raid leader, KS or not! So it's not that you personally have to have been in the KS to benefit, you just have to be in a guild with someone who was.

Now, all that said, they have already stated that the raid leader blessing won't work in tournament pve. What is tournament pve? We don't know yet. They could simply declare that tournament pve is what exists before a boss is killed for the first time.

Note that a good case could be made for excluding the raid leader blessing from this, but you'd *also* have to exclude other exclusives - which kind of defeats the point of exclusives. If there are other champions of a similar power, the exclusive pve mercs become a bit of a non issue.

So maybe what we need is a base raid leader blessing available to all players? The kickstarter version could be an improved or simply different version. I don't know.

But my sense is that most of this is just whining for the sake of whining. People are complaining about the guild exp bonus (complete non issue) or the greater loot bonus (also complete non issue) and some one was even suggesting spectral lotuses should be banned from world first attempts. This is silly because world first pve attempts are the exact place spectral lotuses are likely to be useful, as well as the fact they will be freely available on the AH, I guarantee. Anything that can be bought on the AH cannot be considered a balance issue.

Basically when people start saying 'He's got better cards than me it's not fair!' we know the argument has just drifted into random jealousy.

If you want to kill the boss first, make a deck to kill the boss first. It is entirely likely there will be some other group out there with an advantage compared to you. Guess what? Welcome to life.

The reality is you are far more likely to miss out on a 'world first' of a boss kill because you had to be at work than you are to miss out because the guys that killed it got +1 card in their hand compared to you.

WOW bosses only took so long to kill because it took 40 people and the raid lockout timers. If the bosses could be attempted by 3 people infinitely many times they would have all died within hours of release.

Patrigan
07-03-2013, 08:50 AM
I still don't see this as a big problem.

The naturally occurring and accepted imbalances, in my opinion, greatly exceed the imbalances caused by the raid leader.

If we are willing to accept that a world first obtained by someone with a deck of all legendary cards over a world first obtained by someone who had nothing but commons, why would we balk at a world first obtained because of +1 card?

*snip* read rest above.

You continue to miss the point. It is not about "he has a better card than me" it's about "he has something that even with all the time in the world can ever get". Your response to that is that he can get a lot of other stuff in that time. But let's assume that both players have everything that anyone can get in the game. The guy with RL will always be a step ahead thanks to the RL bonus, because the other guy can never get that.

Remembe rthere will be a major influx of new players after the launch. They all need equal chance to win if they invest as much time as someone else. With RL blessing that is not possible and never will.

Yoss
07-03-2013, 09:13 AM
They just need to have RL be a bonus that you unlock after beating each raid for the first time. Put another way, they should disable the RL bonus for all raids at release and then let you unlock the bonus as you beat each raid. So the RL becomes a farming tool just like DC and GL, but cannot help you get "tournament PVE" wins. This would be entirely consistent with how the KS was worded; it said RL applies only to "non-tournament PVE".

Hatts
07-03-2013, 09:48 AM
They just need to have RL be a bonus that you unlock after beating each raid for the first time. Put another way, they should disable the RL bonus for all raids at release and then let you unlock the bonus as you beat each raid. So the RL becomes a farming tool just like DC and GL, but cannot help you get "tournament PVE" wins. This would be entirely consistent with how the KS was worded; it said RL applies only to "non-tournament PVE".

Why not make it unlock after the first group beats it? After all the only reason why we are discussing this is for the race to be the worlds first group to beat it. Personally I am going to be pissed if I can't use my raid leaders blessing because some others want to compete on who beats it first, I hope I have the option to opt out of this madness.

jaxsonbatemanhex
07-03-2013, 09:51 AM
They probably won't do that. They never implied that Raid Leader would not apply to first-kills of raid content, and they've made it a point of not changing things after-the-fact unless absolutely necessary, which this is not.

Vorpal
07-03-2013, 09:59 AM
You continue to miss the point. It is not about "he has a better card than me" it's about "he has something that even with all the time in the world can ever get". Your response to that is that he can get a lot of other stuff in that time. But let's assume that both players have everything that anyone can get in the game. The guy with RL will always be a step ahead thanks to the RL bonus, because the other guy can never get that.

I am completely unmoved by complaints that "it is unfair because i can never get that". If you find that a valid complaint, you are against any and all forms of exclusive content.

You *could* have gotten that. You chose not too. Now live with the consequences.

But it's important to note that your statement is false: you can get the raid leader's bonus any time you group with a raid leader. It's not a bonus that only can be granted to kickstarters. Do you want the raid leader's bonus? Group with a raid leader.

Once we discard the silly "exclusives are unfair" argument, we are left with the already addressed argument that the raid leader bonus is so powerful that it deserves special consideration because it creates an especially large imbalance. I disagree. I think we already accept imbalances in power much greater than that created by the raid leaders blessing, so there's no point in complaining bout it.

Like I said earlier, I think you are far more likely to miss out on a world first boss kill due to your work schedule than you are to miss it due to not having raid leader's blessing.

Unhurtable
07-03-2013, 10:16 AM
I am completely unmoved by complaints that "it is unfair because i can never get that". If you find that a valid complaint, you are against any and all forms of exclusive content.

You *could* have gotten that. You chose not too. Now live with the consequences.

But it's important to note that your statement is false: you can get the raid leader's bonus any time you group with a raid leader. It's not a bonus that only can be granted to kickstarters. Do you want the raid leader's bonus? Group with a raid leader.

Once we discard the silly "exclusives are unfair" argument, we are left with the already addressed argument that the raid leader bonus is so powerful that it deserves special consideration because it creates an especially large imbalance. I disagree. I think we already accept imbalances in power much greater than that created by the raid leaders blessing, so there's no point in complaining bout it.

Like I said earlier, I think you are far more likely to miss out on a world first boss kill due to your work schedule than you are to miss it due to not having raid leader's blessing.

I love your "you could've gotten that"-argument. It can essentially be used to justify all sorts of crazy stuff. Imagine FIFA offering an auction on "start with 1 additional goal every game next season". You are essentially saying that FIFA would remain a fair competition because "everybody who are playing in the next season had the opportunity to buy this advantage".

How is the "exclusives are unfair" a silly argument? In a fair competition, there are no special rules for specific people.

You might think that the RL bonus will be small, thats a perfectly legitimate assumption as we have no ability to judge its actual power. But what does work schedules have to do with how fair the competition is? Are the rules somehow bent depending on where you live and what you work with?

ConnorJS
07-03-2013, 10:22 AM
There will be competitive PvE, they've mentioned it in interviews/twitch. The KS bonus' wont apply for these (obviously), I also hope for the 'wild west' to have competitive play (PvE rewards).

Yoss
07-03-2013, 11:35 AM
They probably won't do that. They never implied that Raid Leader would not apply to first-kills of raid content, and they've made it a point of not changing things after-the-fact unless absolutely necessary, which this is not.
They said explicitly that RL only applies to "non-tournament PVE", but did not define what that means. Therefore, they are at liberty to define it how they wish between now and game release. They could define the pursuit of "world-first" as "tournament PVE", which seems quite reasonable and indeed anything less restrictive would have negative impact on the competitive side of PVE. My post 75 would be more restrictive and thus more open to debate, but still within the realm of reasonable definition. I'm sure we can think of plenty more definitions for what "tournament PVE" might or should be, and in fact several have already been postulated in this very thread.

Aldazar
07-03-2013, 05:31 PM
You continue to miss the point. It is not about "he has a better card than me" it's about "he has something that even with all the time in the world can ever get". Your response to that is that he can get a lot of other stuff in that time. But let's assume that both players have everything that anyone can get in the game. The guy with RL will always be a step ahead thanks to the RL bonus, because the other guy can never get that.

Remembe rthere will be a major influx of new players after the launch. They all need equal chance to win if they invest as much time as someone else. With RL blessing that is not possible and never will.

I think you are missing the point... People who backed the game before launch on Kickstarter get some boosts/benefits that are exclusive and therefore by definition can't be gotten by players that come along later. That's the whole point! Yes, they will have a slight edge over people that come along later, but that was always the intent! They are being rewarded for backing/supporting the game before it even existed.

So they have a slight edge over new-comers. Is anybody going to quit the game because someone else has an RL benefit that they can't get on their own? Is it going to break the game? No. They don't need an "equal chance to win" in order to want to play - that's a ridiculous assertion, as is your assumption that "both players have everything that anyone can get in the game" - how often do you think that's going to happen, and how is that even relevant to the new players you reference just a line or two below?

In summary, yes, RLs will have a slight edge over people without in specific situations. No, that's not game breaking, it's not going to cause the end of the world or the end of the game, and it most certainly won't drive players away from the game just because they can't get it on their own.

PS: If you're the kind of player that would quit a game or refuse to play just because someone else has a slight buff which you can't get, the game is probably better off without you...

Avedecus
07-03-2013, 05:41 PM
PS: If you're the kind of player that would quit a game or refuse to play just because someone else has a slight buff which you can't get, the game is probably better off without you...

While I agree with this assertion in general, this statement also tells me you don't have any experience with real PvE/raid progression scenes. If the playing field isn't totally balanced, most people will refuse to play on it at all.

Yoss
07-03-2013, 05:51 PM
People who backed the game before launch on Kickstarter get some boosts/benefits that are exclusive and therefore by definition can't be gotten by players that come along later. That's the whole point! Yes, they will have a slight edge over people that come along later, but that was always the intent! They are being rewarded for backing/supporting the game before it even existed.
I don't see anyone here disagreeing with this, if read by itself out of context.


So they have a slight edge over new-comers. Is anybody going to quit the game because someone else has an RL benefit that they can't get on their own? Is it going to break the game? No. They don't need an "equal chance to win" in order to want to play - that's a ridiculous assertion...
It is not rediculous to expect the rules of a game to be impartial towards all players.


...as is your assumption that "both players have everything that anyone can get in the game" - how often do you think that's going to happen, and how is that even relevant to the new players you reference just a line or two below?
It doesn't matter how often it might or might not happen. He was just giving a hypothetical situation to consider to highlight the primary point that a game's rules should be impartial to all players.


In summary, yes, RLs will have a slight edge over people without in specific situations. No, that's not game breaking, it's not going to cause the end of the world or the end of the game, and it most certainly won't drive players away from the game just because they can't get it on their own.

PS: If you're the kind of player that would quit a game or refuse to play just because someone else has a slight buff which you can't get, the game is probably better off without you...
So far as I can tell, no one is trying to take away the RL buff. The argument is simply about how to define what "non-tournament PVE" should consist of, given that CZE has not yet defined what that means.

As Aved said, the high end competitive PVE needs to be equal opportunity or the types of people that usually go for that kind of thing simply won't play. They'll find some other MMO that is balanced.

Hatts
07-03-2013, 06:13 PM
So far as I can tell, no one is trying to take away the RL buff. The argument is simply about how to define what "non-tournament PVE" should consist of, given that CZE has not yet defined what that means.


To be fair you have proposed taking away the raid buff for each raid until you have defeated the raid without it. That would be a nerf to the raid buff that I am not in favor of. As long as I can check the 'I don't care about being first' button and get my buff back I would grudgingly accept that proposal.

I think redefining non-tournament PVE to include raids or a subset of raids would be pretty disingenuous by CZE. I think most people who backed GK / RL expect the buff to always apply in raids as they have been currently defined.

Yoss
07-03-2013, 06:22 PM
To be fair you have proposed taking away the raid buff for each raid until you have defeated the raid without it. That would be a nerf to the raid buff that I am not in favor of. As long as I can check the 'I don't care about being first' button and get my buff back I would grudgingly accept that proposal.
It's true, I did suggest that, and I'll admit it might be a tighter version than it needs to be. At the very least world-first rankings (and that means not just the litteral 1st but all places in the top 20, 100, or whatever) need to be defined as "tournament PVE". I like your suggestion of opting out of the rankings in order to have the RL active.


I think redefining non-tournament PVE to include raids or a subset of raids would be pretty disingenuous by CZE. I think most people who backed GK / RL expect the buff to always apply in raids as they have been currently defined.
Where are you finding information that they've even hinted at what "non-tournament PVE" consists of in regards to Raid Leader? As far as I know they've been completely silent on the issue, and therefore no one should be using words like "disingenuous" or "redefining" and we should not "expect the buff to always apply" when they expressly said it will not always apply.

I get it (famous last words). Those with RL want it to be valuable, and I agree it should be valuable. However, there's also the health of the game to consider and if they construe "non-tournament PVE" too broadly then it will be detrimental to the game, as discussed in this thread.

Hatts
07-03-2013, 07:15 PM
Where are you finding information that they've even hinted at what "non-tournament PVE" consists of in regards to Raid Leader? As far as I know they've been completely silent on the issue, and therefore no one should be using words like "disingenuous" or "redefining" and we should not "expect the buff to always apply" when they expressly said it will not always apply.


Mainly from this article: http://hextcg.com/dragon-slaying/

We get both a good definition of what a raid is, which is 3 player vs AI, discovered in dungeons, uses PvE gear, gives the best PvE awards, is hard, raid leader buff applies to it. We also get a definition of what tournament PvE is, which is a tournament against other players using our PvE gear. Having a definition of raids and tournament PvE gives us a good idea of what non-tournament PvE is despite it not being defined explicitly. The implicit definition is that non-tournament PvE is anything not fitting the PvE tournament definition they provided.

Turning around and saying those raids we just described aren't actually considered raids for the raid leader buff until you beat them once would be disingenuous. You are looking to redefine both raid and tournament PvE to shoehorn in a worlds first ranking without RL buffs.

Hatts
07-03-2013, 07:58 PM
There's a much simpler solution to this. In the world first list show a rl blessing icon beside any done with the rl bonuses. Add filtering, problem solved.

Yoss
07-03-2013, 10:17 PM
We also get a definition of what tournament PvE is, which is a tournament against other players using our PvE gear. Having a definition of raids and tournament PvE gives us a good idea of what non-tournament PvE is despite it not being defined explicitly. The implicit definition is that non-tournament PvE is anything not fitting the PvE tournament definition they provided.

Also, there will be PvP-PvE tournaments as well! Yes, you’re reading that right: PvP tournaments in which you play other players using your PvE-acquired cards and wearing your PvE-acquired Equipment! These tournaments are sure to be wild, as the deck possibilities are practically endless.
This is the only reference to both PVE and tournaments simultaneously, and has nothing to do with Raid Leader because it has nothing to do with raids. In fact, it doesn't even really address "tournament PVE" because it refers to it as "PVP-PVE tournaments", not "PVE tournaments". If the tournament PVE reference here is the only tournament PVE that exists, then stipulating that Raid Leader only applies to non-tournament PVE is completely meaningless. If we assume that CZE would not put meaningless text in the description of their tiers (should be a good assumption), then we must conclude that there is a raid-related tournament PVE of some kind that has not been revealed yet.


Turning around and saying those raids we just described aren't actually considered raids for the raid leader buff until you beat them once would be disingenuous. You are looking to redefine both raid and tournament PvE to shoehorn in a worlds first ranking without RL buffs.
Based on what I said above, we should expect there is still some form of raid-related "tournament PVE" yet to be revealed. If the competitive race for first completions is considered "tournament PVE" like it should be, then it is not disingenuous to prevent RL from applying to that mode since that's exactly what the KS tier said. In fact would be disingenuous if they "turned around" and said that RL backers were mandatory to be optimally competitive in "tournament PVE".

And you're right, segregating the RL wins/achievements from the real ones would work, just like blocking RL until the "tournament" is over would work. So we've come up with a few different possible solutions to satisfy both sides, in varying degrees of favoring one view versus the other.

Options for solution (I think both sides have at least somewhat agreed on these):
Disable RL when in PVE competition, like going for world-first (or 2nd, 3rd, or however far people actually care about) in a given raid. Give an option to opt out of the competition in order to still use the RL bonus before you've made your first completion.
If RL is used, no competitive achievements are awarded (no "World First").
If RL is used, alternate competitive achievements are awarded, that will presumably be less prestigious ("Raid Leader World First" instead of "World First").

Aldazar
07-03-2013, 11:32 PM
While I agree with this assertion in general, this statement also tells me you don't have any experience with real PvE/raid progression scenes. If the playing field isn't totally balanced, most people will refuse to play on it at all.

Are you asserting that people will refuse to play an entire section of the game just because someone else can draw an extra card in their starting hand while playing that section of the game? I find that rather hard to believe... The fact that the content may be a bit more challenging without the buff doesn't make it less enjoyable or the rewards less rewarding, so why would they not want to play the content?

That's also ignoring the fact that they might even be able to get the buff by joining up with someone who has it (admittedly not available to absolutely everyone)

Aldazar
07-03-2013, 11:48 PM
It is not rediculous to expect the rules of a game to be impartial towards all players.


It actually is a little ridiculous... The world is not impartial, and nor is this game. If you have a ton of money, you will have a big edge, whether it's through buying crazy expensive tiers (or even multiples of them) or buying every single card on day 1 and beating people who can't afford to do so. If you got in early on the KS and bought the limited tiers that ran out and are no longer available, you have advantages that other people don't and never will have. In life, and in Hex, people with more resources get advantages over those who have less, and people who move quicker/discover things earlier also tend to get benefits from that. It's a bit ridiculous, in my opinion, to penalize people who invest resources (in this case money) or were quick on the jump to secure a higher KS tier or who had the foresight to pick tiers that give benefits which will help them in certain circumstances. And yes, you are penalizing them by effectively removing an edge which they have "earned".



It doesn't matter how often it might or might not happen. He was just giving a hypothetical situation to consider to highlight the primary point that a game's rules should be impartial to all players.


Of course it matters! Anyone can throw out ridiculous hypotheses to support points that don't hold water on their own, but they are not strong arguments...

Let us consider the hypothetical possibility that everyone has everything, but one guy is on dial-up and the other guy has fiber. The dial-up guy's connection is slow, so he has less time to think about what card to draft. Let's make it equal and insist that everyone in the world be allowed to connect to Hex's servers no faster than the slowest dial-up modem in the world, just in case...

Rare and/or silly hypotheses don't add much to an argument... I'm sure many people could sit around thinking up ridiculous hypothetical situations that might make something in the game slightly unfair, but what's the point? It's fine for the vast majority of situations, and in the few occassions that it's not, the difference is small enough to not be game



As Aved said, the high end competitive PVE needs to be equal opportunity or the types of people that usually go for that kind of thing simply won't play. They'll find some other MMO that is balanced.

Again, I don't buy it - someone else having a slight edge in something doesn't make the content less fun or interesting, especially when it doesn't even affect you directly (ie someone else with RL doesn't actually make it harder or easier for you to beat a raid unless they're in your group). It also doesn't make the rewards from the raids less valuable, so people will still want to raid for the fun of it and for the rewards it yields...

Unhurtable
07-04-2013, 02:23 AM
It actually is a little ridiculous... The world is not impartial, and nor is this game. If you have a ton of money, you will have a big edge, whether it's through buying crazy expensive tiers (or even multiples of them) or buying every single card on day 1 and beating people who can't afford to do so. If you got in early on the KS and bought the limited tiers that ran out and are no longer available, you have advantages that other people don't and never will have. In life, and in Hex, people with more resources get advantages over those who have less, and people who move quicker/discover things earlier also tend to get benefits from that. It's a bit ridiculous, in my opinion, to penalize people who invest resources (in this case money) or were quick on the jump to secure a higher KS tier or who had the foresight to pick tiers that give benefits which will help them in certain circumstances. And yes, you are penalizing them by effectively removing an edge which they have "earned".

It is not ridiculous because designing rules to be impartial is very easy. The world is not impartial, that is correct, but what does that have to do with anything? The world is not fair, so we might as well go back in time to a place where everyones rights where not equal. No, we work to make the world as fair as possible. Your own "the world is not impartial" argument can be used against you in this case. "It's not a bit ridiculous to penalize people who invest resources, because the world is not fair. Bad investments happen, both in the real world and in Hex".


Of course it matters! Anyone can throw out ridiculous hypotheses to support points that don't hold water on their own, but they are not strong arguments...

Let us consider the hypothetical possibility that everyone has everything, but one guy is on dial-up and the other guy has fiber. The dial-up guy's connection is slow, so he has less time to think about what card to draft. Let's make it equal and insist that everyone in the world be allowed to connect to Hex's servers no faster than the slowest dial-up modem in the world, just in case...

Rare and/or silly hypotheses don't add much to an argument... I'm sure many people could sit around thinking up ridiculous hypothetical situations that might make something in the game slightly unfair, but what's the point? It's fine for the vast majority of situations, and in the few occassions that it's not, the difference is small enough to not be game


Internet speed has nothing to do with the rules of the game. I can agree that the idea that you have "all the cards in the game" might be a bit of a ridiculous hypothetical situation, so lets reduce the hypothetical. Imagine both players, instead of having all cards, have all cards that are the best against a certain encounter. In other words, in terms of cards, both players cannot construct better decks for this encounter. One player will still always have an advantage the other player can never get.



Again, I don't buy it - someone else having a slight edge in something doesn't make the content less fun or interesting, especially when it doesn't even affect you directly (ie someone else with RL doesn't actually make it harder or easier for you to beat a raid unless they're in your group). It also doesn't make the rewards from the raids less valuable, so people will still want to raid for the fun of it and for the rewards it yields...

It doesn't have to do with whether or not something is fun or interesting. It has to do with how fair the competition is. Imagine you want to play Limited Sealed and you have 2 different tournaments to participate in.
1. Tournament 1 Season 2 : Everybody starts with 20 Life.
2. Tournament 2 Season 2 : Everybody who played in season 1 starts with 30 Life. Others start with 20.
The vast majority of people who get this option will choose number 1. It might be more fun or interesting to play versus opponents with an inherent advantage, but most people will go with the option that is most beneficial to them. In other words, the competition that is the most fair will attract the most people since most people will find it beneficial.

It also affects you directly if its a competition. If we compete in 100-meter dash, your time will affect whether or not I won.

Hatts
07-04-2013, 07:25 AM
And you're right, segregating the RL wins/achievements from the real ones would work, just like blocking RL until the "tournament" is over would work. So we've come up with a few different possible solutions to satisfy both sides, in varying degrees of favoring one view versus the other.

Options for solution (I think both sides have at least somewhat agreed on these):
Disable RL when in PVE competition, like going for world-first (or 2nd, 3rd, or however far people actually care about) in a given raid. Give an option to opt out of the competition in order to still use the RL bonus before you've made your first completion.
If RL is used, no competitive achievements are awarded (no "World First").
If RL is used, alternate competitive achievements are awarded, that will presumably be less prestigious ("Raid Leader World First" instead of "World First").


I think since you are proposing a new feature of tracking who beats each raid first, it's behoves you impact other modes of play as little as possible. With that in mind, here is my non-obtrusive list of implementation options:

Create a list of the first X teams to beat each raid. Indicate which team had RL blessings (and how many.) Add filtering to the list so that blessing and no blessing can be viewed separately.
If RL is used, alternate competitive achievements are awarded, that will presumably be less prestigious ("Raid Leader World First" instead of "World First").
When a group runs a raid that has spots left in the top X non-RL bonus list, prompt them if they want to remove their blessing and attempt to join the list.

I've replaced your opt-out option with an opt-in option which I hope you agree is a better experience then inexplicably having your RL bonus disabled. This is similar to what CZE has communicated, you can chose whether to turn the RL blessing on or not.

I wrote a longer response to the first half of your post then deleted it, it was cathartic. It seems you've backed off your proposal to nerf the RL buff in your options so I am going to let that argument lie.

Hexgo
07-04-2013, 07:40 AM
Hello everyone

A word to reply generally to what was posted in this thread.
I think a lot of people didn’t quite get the point, so I will clarify some thoughts I had
when I started the thread.

1. I was talking about competitive PVE. That’s one part of the PVE, not the whole
PVE experience. This means if I say “There won’t be real competitive PVE” it doesn’t
mean the whole PVE experience will be bad.
Just that part won’t be there.

2. What is competitive PVE? It is the competition of “beating” the environmental
aspect of the game faster/or with more restrictions than other players do
(or even beat it at all if no one else can). Someone mentioned that this is just
another form of PVP what isn’t entirely wrong, but how you call it is actually
irrelevant. I used this term of “competitive PVE” because it’s common in the MMO scene.

3. You cannot compare a game to life. Life is a social open system
(except maybe in the physical view) with an inapprehensible (maybe
that’s the wrong word, English is not my native language) set of rules.
There is no real substitute to life, a decision against it is ultimate
(subject to philosophical discussion).

A game on the other hand is a closed, mostly static system with a very
basic set of rules for everyone to understand (at least in comparison to life).
In that closed system the rules usually are the same for every participant.
If they are not (it happens) it is not fit to be a “competitive game”.
Every factor that leads towards winning the game, is therefor an external factor.
If you have more money, more strength, intelligence or just more time, it doesn’t
matter what you list, everything will be an external factor.
The game can restrict these factors by its rules and style of course.
However in the closed system itself it always will be the same for everyone.
There are also a lot of substitutes for games, so you can choose not to play this one.

4. Some of the KS Buffs are (until further clarification of Cryptozoic) built into
the “closed system”. (What is "tournament PVE content" and how does it exactly
work? Will it be the only competitive part of PVE?) You might say there are similar
problems with e.g. races in other MMOs that are better than others and therefor
the game is unbalanced. While this is true, they are not exclusive to anyone and
you can mostly reroll to those (if your external factors allow it).

I hope this made some of my initial points clearer. And thanks a lot to everyone
who had something to add to the whole situation.

Finally, I’m very excited to play this game, regardless if it comes with “competitive PVE” or not!

AstaSyneri
07-04-2013, 07:50 AM
While I agree with this assertion in general, this statement also tells me you don't have any experience with real PvE/raid progression scenes. If the playing field isn't totally balanced, most people will refuse to play on it at all.

The Hex Raids are not comparable with those e.g. in WoW. These basically are puzzle challenges and PvE Hex players will play them regardless, because they are fun!


I think you are missing the point... People who backed the game before launch on Kickstarter get some boosts/benefits that are exclusive and therefore by definition can't be gotten by players that come along later. That's the whole point! Yes, they will have a slight edge over people that come along later, but that was always the intent! They are being rewarded for backing/supporting the game before it even existed.

So they have a slight edge over new-comers. Is anybody going to quit the game because someone else has an RL benefit that they can't get on their own? Is it going to break the game? No. They don't need an "equal chance to win" in order to want to play - that's a ridiculous assertion, as is your assumption that "both players have everything that anyone can get in the game" - how often do you think that's going to happen, and how is that even relevant to the new players you reference just a line or two below?

In summary, yes, RLs will have a slight edge over people without in specific situations. No, that's not game breaking, it's not going to cause the end of the world or the end of the game, and it most certainly won't drive players away from the game just because they can't get it on their own.


Exactly. The scope of the RL benefit is already very narrow. Taking away from it would absolutely invalidate it.


It's true, I did suggest that, and I'll admit it might be a tighter version than it needs to be. At the very least world-first rankings (and that means not just the litteral 1st but all places in the top 20, 100, or whatever) need to be defined as "tournament PVE". I like your suggestion of opting out of the rankings in order to have the RL active.

I get it (famous last words). Those with RL want it to be valuable, and I agree it should be valuable. However, there's also the health of the game to consider and if they construe "non-tournament PVE" too broadly then it will be detrimental to the game, as discussed in this thread.

The health of Hex will be determined in PvP, where most of the "real" players will be doing their thing. Raids are a side show for those who don't have the time and guts to do PvP (like me ;-)). World First is World First, period. You might as well include "World First without Spectral Lotus" or "World First sitting in your underwear" (sorry, couldn't resist).


And you're right, segregating the RL wins/achievements from the real ones would work, just like blocking RL until the "tournament" is over would work. So we've come up with a few different possible solutions to satisfy both sides, in varying degrees of favoring one view versus the other.

Options for solution (I think both sides have at least somewhat agreed on these):
Disable RL when in PVE competition, like going for world-first (or 2nd, 3rd, or however far people actually care about) in a given raid. Give an option to opt out of the competition in order to still use the RL bonus before you've made your first completion.
If RL is used, no competitive achievements are awarded (no "World First").
If RL is used, alternate competitive achievements are awarded, that will presumably be less prestigious ("Raid Leader World First" instead of "World First").


Luckily this will not happen, because likely CZE will not see a problem (and not issue competitive achievements in the first place, they will at most be "awarded" by the community). If there are achievements like that, you'll get it for slaying Raid Boss XYZ, no matter how you did it. RL wins/achievements are real. It's not like you are handed over the Raid Boss' head without a fight.

Yoss
07-04-2013, 08:46 AM
Are you asserting that people will refuse to play an entire section of the game just because someone else can draw an extra card in their starting hand while playing that section of the game? I find that rather hard to believe... The fact that the content may be a bit more challenging without the buff doesn't make it less enjoyable or the rewards less rewarding, so why would they not want to play the content?
If you're talking about casual players, you're right, they'll play the content regardless. However, we're not talking casual here; we're talking "bleeding-edge" competitive PVE players, the kind who care very much about being first to complete and who, while trying to get every advantage they can, want to know they're competing on a level playing field. For those players, the rewards might, in fact, be "less rewarding" because they'll feel cheated by an unlevel playing field.

If the playing field is not level, those competivite PVE types will simply find another MMO that does have a level field. It is not that they will stop playing games, it's that they will stop (or never start) playing this particular game.

Yoss
07-04-2013, 08:53 AM
I think since you are proposing a new feature of tracking who beats each raid first, it's behoves you impact other modes of play as little as possible. With that in mind, here is my non-obtrusive list of implementation options:
Create a list of the first X teams to beat each raid. Indicate which team had RL blessings (and how many.) Add filtering to the list so that blessing and no blessing can be viewed separately.
If RL is used, alternate competitive achievements are awarded, that will presumably be less prestigious ("Raid Leader World First" instead of "World First").
When a group runs a raid that has spots left in the top X non-RL bonus list, prompt them if they want to remove their blessing and attempt to join the list.

I've replaced your opt-out option with an opt-in option which I hope you agree is a better experience then inexplicably having your RL bonus disabled. This is similar to what CZE has communicated, you can chose whether to turn the RL blessing on or not.
Those work for me, nice doing business. :)

Yoss
07-04-2013, 09:09 AM
The Hex Raids are not comparable with those e.g. in WoW. These basically are puzzle challenges and PvE Hex players will play them regardless, because they are fun!
Yes, PVE Hex players will play them. The question is, who will the PVE Hex players be and how many will there be? Will some of them be competitive MMO types, or not? If not, then Hex will be less of a success than it could have been.


Exactly. The scope of the RL benefit is already very narrow. Taking away from it would absolutely invalidate it.
See Hatts' proposal. It should keep everyone happy.


The health of Hex will be determined in PvP, where most of the "real" players will be doing their thing. Raids are a side show for those who don't have the time and guts to do PvP (like me ;-)).
I'm not sure what you intended, but this sounds incredibly arrogant and elitist.


World First is World First, period. You might as well include "World First without Spectral Lotus"...
The Lotus example is not in the same category because the Lotus will be available (and probably cheap) on the AH. RL will not be on the AH.


Luckily this will not happen, because likely CZE will not see a problem...
There is some indication that they do see a problem, because they put a stipulation of "non-tournament PVE" on the RL tier. Even if they did not see a problem before, this thread should have alerted them.


(and not issue competitive achievements in the first place, they will at most be "awarded" by the community). If there are achievements like that, you'll get it for slaying Raid Boss XYZ, no matter how you did it. RL wins/achievements are real. It's not like you are handed over the Raid Boss' head without a fight.
RL wins are real, but not equivalent to non-RL. Please see Hatts' proposal.

Avedecus
07-04-2013, 01:11 PM
Again, I don't buy it - someone else having a slight edge in something doesn't make the content less fun or interesting, especially when it doesn't even affect you directly (ie someone else with RL doesn't actually make it harder or easier for you to beat a raid unless they're in your group). It also doesn't make the rewards from the raids less valuable, so people will still want to raid for the fun of it and for the rewards it yields...
There seems to be a misunderstanding here: Competitive pve is not about "fun". It is about winning, being the best, and being the first. None of those things matter if all the competitors do not start on even ground. To be clear, this is not an indictment of people who choose that playstyle. That's just how they get their enjoyment out of the game.

Evil-Lite
07-04-2013, 02:36 PM
If you're talking about casual players, you're right, they'll play the content regardless. However, we're not talking casual here; we're talking "bleeding-edge" competitive PVE players, the kind who care very much about being first to complete and who, while trying to get every advantage they can, want to know they're competing on a level playing field. For those players, the rewards might, in fact, be "less rewarding" because they'll feel cheated by an unlevel playing field.

If the playing field is not level, those competivite PVE types will simply find another MMO that does have a level field. It is not that they will stop playing games, it's that they will stop (or never start) playing this particular game.

Not sure which MMO has "a level playing field." Any MMO that uses players to test new content does not have a level playing field (All of the MMO's I have played do this). Developers bring in the best / well known raiders to test out part (or even all) of a raids mechanics. The raiders that helped test the new content now have an unfair advantage.

I am willing to bet knowing the mechanics of a fight and how to counter the mechanics is a lot more of an advantage then the Raid Leader bonus. MMO's have survived since the start of MMO's with this unfair advantage, I am sure HEX will survive with a less important advantage.

Let us not even go down the road of how "Competitive Raiders" want a level playing field. I have lost track of the number of "Hardcore" raiders that have used exploits to gain advantage and once they have received the gear / rewards / server (world) firsts they tell the Devs about it to prevent others from using the exploit. They will say they want a level playing field; however, they will find any method they can to make sure they have an unfair advantage over others.

Unhurtable
07-04-2013, 03:44 PM
Not sure which MMO has "a level playing field." Any MMO that uses players to test new content does not have a level playing field (All of the MMO's I have played do this). Developers bring in the best / well known raiders to test out part (or even all) of a raids mechanics. The raiders that helped test the new content now have an unfair advantage.

I am willing to bet knowing the mechanics of a fight and how to counter the mechanics is a lot more of an advantage then the Raid Leader bonus. MMO's have survived since the start of MMO's with this unfair advantage, I am sure HEX will survive with a less important advantage.

Let us not even go down the road of how "Competitive Raiders" want a level playing field. I have lost track of the number of "Hardcore" raiders that have used exploits to gain advantage and once they have received the gear / rewards / server (world) firsts they tell the Devs about it to prevent others from using the exploit. They will say they want a level playing field; however, they will find any method they can to make sure they have an unfair advantage over others.

AFAIK no large MMO has had a 100% fair competitive scene, because of the reasons you mentioned. The thing you did not mention is that essentially any guild can become a raid-testing guild if they prove themselves to be on the "bleeding-edge". Is it 100% fair? No, the testing of the new raid content is not open, therefore exclusive, therefore not 100% fair.

I don't condone exploits, but exploits are impartial. They are not exclusive. They might only be available for a limited time (until they are fixed) but there is no "only these raiders may use this exploit".

You are being anecdotal. All of the times I've heard of exploits being used in competitive raiding to down a boss first those raiding groups tend to be "ruled out" of the world first.

Evil-Lite
07-04-2013, 05:44 PM
AFAIK no large MMO has had a 100% fair competitive scene, because of the reasons you mentioned. The thing you did not mention is that essentially any guild can become a raid-testing guild if they prove themselves to be on the "bleeding-edge". Is it 100% fair? No, the testing of the new raid content is not open, therefore exclusive, therefore not 100% fair.

And any guild is able to recruit a Raid Leader if they so choose. Now if the Raid Leader wants to join them is a different story. Is this 100% fair? Nope, but any guild can recruit a Raid Leader to get the buff if they believe the buff will help them.

Hardcore raiders recruit people that will benefit them the most. A skilled Raid Leader will be in higher demand then a skilled non-Raid Leader. However, a skilled player will be more sought after then a non-skilled Raid Leader. While the Raid Leader buff is a crutch, it does not make up for skill.



I don't condone exploits, but exploits are impartial. They are not exclusive. They might only be available for a limited time (until they are fixed) but there is no "only these raiders may use this exploit".

Raid Leader was available to all for a limited time...



You are being anecdotal. All of the times I've heard of exploits being used in competitive raiding to down a boss first those raiding groups tend to be "ruled out" of the world first.

While I am sure raids have lost their 1st kill award now and again (I know of a few myself), it is not common place for that to happen though.

Regardless of the above, this is getting off on a tangent.

I brought up the exploits to show that competitive raiders do not want a level playing field. They want to get the achievement (and loot) for killing the raid boss by any means required.

Kietay
07-04-2013, 05:52 PM
The real question is: Why does anyone care who beat an AI first. It's about the same as caring who traced their pencil through the place-mat map before anyone else. Super easy upside down turtle spinning action. It is a cool feature to see who did it, but wow, it is definitely not worth spending any thought on if RL should be accounted for or not.

Yoss
07-04-2013, 07:01 PM
The real question is: Why does anyone care who beat an AI first. It's about the same as caring who traced their pencil through the place-mat map before anyone else. Super easy upside down turtle spinning action. It is a cool feature to see who did it, but wow, it is definitely not worth spending any thought on if RL should be accounted for or not.
Just because you scoff at competitive PVE doesn't mean that there aren't people who want to dedicate a large portion of their time to the PVE chase and who won't care at all about PVP.

Kietay
07-04-2013, 07:03 PM
I know there -are- those people, my question was what insanity drives them.

Yoss
07-04-2013, 07:23 PM
And any guild is able to recruit a Raid Leader if they so choose. Now if the Raid Leader wants to join them is a different story. Is this 100% fair? Nope, but any guild can recruit a Raid Leader to get the buff if they believe the buff will help them.

Hardcore raiders recruit people that will benefit them the most. A skilled Raid Leader will be in higher demand then a skilled non-Raid Leader. However, a skilled player will be more sought after then a non-skilled Raid Leader. While the Raid Leader buff is a crutch, it does not make up for skill.
So basically you're saying that RL will be required for competitive PVE, which is exactly what "my side" of this has been worried about all along. Thank you for confirming our fears and our arguments.


I don't condone exploits, but exploits are impartial. They are not exclusive. They might only be available for a limited time (until they are fixed) but there is no "only these raiders may use this exploit".

Raid Leader was available to all for a limited time...
This is not a valid comparison. RL is not an exploit on just-released content that anyone playing at that time could access. It would be more like an exploit from back when the game was Beta that gave you a permanent hand up for all time (which the devs would most certainly take away from you if they knew about it).


I brought up the exploits to show that competitive raiders do not want a level playing field. They want to get the achievement (and loot) for killing the raid boss by any means required.
You cannot categorically say that all competitive raiders (or competitors in any other game/sport) are corrupt and will use any means necessary to win, even in violation of the rules. There are honest people in the world, believe it or not.


I know there -are- those people, my question was what insanity drives them.
I cannot speak for everyone (who can?), but I can cite the Premonition guild in WoW that my brother was part of a couple years ago. They were high enough in the rankings to be featured at BlizCon, and my brother's toon (Meldryn) was live on the big screen. I've asked him to come post here so you can hear it from the horse's mouth what these type of players are looking for. I don't know how long it will take him to post here (he's not even registered on the forums yet, despite being a KS backer), but I'll be sending him a link to this thread.

Evil-Lite
07-04-2013, 08:12 PM
So basically you're saying that RL will be required for competitive PVE, which is exactly what "my side" of this has been worried about all along. Thank you for confirming our fears and our arguments.

Where did I say that RL will be required? I said Skill > RL buff.

There are "basically" three categories when it comes to raiding and the RL buff:

1) You can not complete the raid with the RL buff.
2) You can only complete the raid with the RL buff.
3) You do not need the RL buff to complete the raid.

Guess which person will be in a "Competitive PvE" guild and running raids and who will not be? Raid Leader will be a non-factor for serious PvE competitive guilds.



This is not a valid comparison. RL is not an exploit on just-released content that anyone playing at that time could access. It would be more like an exploit from back when the game was Beta that gave you a permanent hand up for all time (which the devs would most certainly take away from you if they knew about it).

Who said anything about a comparison?

I agree that RL is not an exploit, I am sad that you compare it to an exploit in your next sentence though.



You cannot categorically say that all competitive raiders (or competitors in any other game/sport) are corrupt and will use any means necessary to win, even in violation of the rules. There are honest people in the world, believe it or not.

Please quote where I said "all" competitive raiders are corrupt? What I did say was competitive raiders (in the general sense, not all inclusive) have used exploits to there advantage.

I will agree, not all raiders use exploits to beat a boss. That does not prevent what I said from being true.

Aldazar
07-04-2013, 11:29 PM
And any guild is able to recruit a Raid Leader if they so choose. Now if the Raid Leader wants to join them is a different story. Is this 100% fair? Nope, but any guild can recruit a Raid Leader to get the buff if they believe the buff will help them.

Hardcore raiders recruit people that will benefit them the most. A skilled Raid Leader will be in higher demand then a skilled non-Raid Leader. However, a skilled player will be more sought after then a non-skilled Raid Leader. While the Raid Leader buff is a crutch, it does not make up for skill.



So basically you're saying that RL will be required for competitive PVE, which is exactly what "my side" of this has been worried about all along. Thank you for confirming our fears and our arguments.



The failure in logic here is hilarious... Evil-Lite didn't say anything of the sort, but I guess out of desperation you could just declare that he did!

Aldazar
07-04-2013, 11:45 PM
It is not ridiculous because designing rules to be impartial is very easy. The world is not impartial, that is correct, but what does that have to do with anything? The world is not fair, so we might as well go back in time to a place where everyones rights where not equal. No, we work to make the world as fair as possible. Your own "the world is not impartial" argument can be used against you in this case. "It's not a bit ridiculous to penalize people who invest resources, because the world is not fair. Bad investments happen, both in the real world and in Hex".

Sorry, I shouldn't have compared to the real world - you're right, this is a game, it's not the real world. Poor choice on my part. I maintain, however, that it is ridiculous (to me) to deny someone the benefits of being an 'early bird' and investing in the game just to make the people who came along later feel that they have a better shot... I guess I'm saying ppl with RL bonuses earned and paid for the edge they have over those who come along later and artificially flattening the playing field by denying them that edge does seem ridiculous to me...



Internet speed has nothing to do with the rules of the game. I can agree that the idea that you have "all the cards in the game" might be a bit of a ridiculous hypothetical situation, so lets reduce the hypothetical. Imagine both players, instead of having all cards, have all cards that are the best against a certain encounter. In other words, in terms of cards, both players cannot construct better decks for this encounter. One player will still always have an advantage the other player can never get.
My point was, should rules be put in place to make everything essentially equal to the lowest common denominator? Whether that's people who didn't get in early enough in the KS or whether that's people who can't afford faster internet, you are asking for rules that essentially flatten the playing field, giving everyone an equal shot. For that to happen, you have to knock down anyone who has an advantage of any sort (whether that's RL perks or a faster internet connection) all the way down to the weakest guy, so that they have an equal chance... Anyway I think the whole comparison/hypothetical thing is a bit silly here, so I'm happy to drop this point...



It doesn't have to do with whether or not something is fun or interesting. It has to do with how fair the competition is. Imagine you want to play Limited Sealed and you have 2 different tournaments to participate in.
1. Tournament 1 Season 2 : Everybody starts with 20 Life.
2. Tournament 2 Season 2 : Everybody who played in season 1 starts with 30 Life. Others start with 20.
The vast majority of people who get this option will choose number 1. It might be more fun or interesting to play versus opponents with an inherent advantage, but most people will go with the option that is most beneficial to them. In other words, the competition that is the most fair will attract the most people since most people will find it beneficial.

It also affects you directly if its a competition. If we compete in 100-meter dash, your time will affect whether or not I won.

This is a flawed analogy for two reasons:
1) 20 life vs 30 life is a bit ridiculous - the gap is most definitely not a 50% advantage
2) your analogy assumes that there is another identical game with the exception of the rules difference. There most certainly aren't any identical games out there and there aren't really even any that are very similar, so alternatives are limited.

As such, I would argue that the differential between RL and non-RL would have to be huge for it to drive people to the next best (and significantly different/inferior in other aspects) game. It isn't huge, so this shouldn't be that big of a deal.

Aldazar
07-04-2013, 11:51 PM
If you're talking about casual players, you're right, they'll play the content regardless. However, we're not talking casual here; we're talking "bleeding-edge" competitive PVE players, the kind who care very much about being first to complete and who, while trying to get every advantage they can, want to know they're competing on a level playing field. For those players, the rewards might, in fact, be "less rewarding" because they'll feel cheated by an unlevel playing field.

If the playing field is not level, those competivite PVE types will simply find another MMO that does have a level field. It is not that they will stop playing games, it's that they will stop (or never start) playing this particular game.

Perhaps if they're that competitive and driven, they will aim to either a) find an RL to team up with to get the buff or, even better, b) beat them anyway without the buff and thus prove without a doubt that they are superior!

They're pretty lame/weak competitors, if upon seeing that someone else has a minor edge going into the fight, they start crying about it and refuse to play/give up...

Aldazar
07-04-2013, 11:54 PM
There seems to be a misunderstanding here: Competitive pve is not about "fun". It is about winning, being the best, and being the first. None of those things matter if all the competitors do not start on even ground. To be clear, this is not an indictment of people who choose that playstyle. That's just how they get their enjoyment out of the game.

Ok, fair point, but how many people out there are so obsessed with everything being exactly 100% completely and wholly without exception "fair" and on even ground that they will quit a game just because it's not 100% even?

As someone who has played competitive sports a lot in the past, and who is pretty competitive in general, I can tell you that I have entered competitions where other teams had an "unfair" edge, but I played anyway and fought hard to beat them in spite of their advantage. What I did not do is start crying about it and refuse to play.

AstaSyneri
07-05-2013, 12:09 AM
First of all: Kudos to Yoss for keeping the thread civil, despite the potential for it to go off to hateland.



The health of Hex will be determined in PvP, where most of the "real" players will be doing their thing. Raids are a side show for those who don't have the time and guts to do PvP (like me ;-)).
I'm not sure what you intended, but this sounds incredibly arrogant and elitist.

PvE is something very new for CCG tournament players. Warlord had it, GoT to some extent, and of course the WoW TCG. In events for those games - such challenges are a side event.

As usual there is an assumption that could be challenged: I assume that at a high level Hex will primarily be played by such players. Those players with tournament background who don't have the time to "go pro" anymore, will in my opinion drift toward PvE. New "previously point & click MMO" players will likely start out with PvE content to learn the ropes and eventually go into raiding. My point here is that the game itself simply is a lot different mechanically from what MMO players know and are used to. The top level competition will be dominated by pro-level CCG players from Magic and WoW, the MMO part is window dressing to get new players in.

There is no problem with being elitist if you can back it up ;-). Unfortunately in my case I don't have the time to meddle with World Championships and such high-end PvP due to other commitments, despite feeling the allure. I tried to convey the attitude I expect of CCG players as I know them (the really good players tend to be pretty cool - it's mosly the wannabes... but I digress). The arrogance I chalk up to not being a native speaker. It happens sometimes, I don't know why.


There is some indication that they do see a problem, because they put a stipulation of "non-tournament PVE" on the RL tier. Even if they did not see a problem before, this thread should have alerted them.

Not necessarily a problem, but maybe just a precaution. Promising things can bite you...

This could just mean that you can't use the Raid Leader's Blessing card in that crazy "PvP with PvE cards" tournament play that was hinted at. We simply don't know enough about what CZE has in store for us.


See Hatts' proposal. It should keep everyone happy.

RL wins are real, but not equivalent to non-RL. Please see Hatts' proposal.

No, doesn't keep me happy. I might as well clamor to exclude people who have no kids, or no job because I feel that would be an unfair advantage, since they have more time. I am sure would could come up with a few other real life circumstances that hinder you at becoming World First.

To me it's the same argument as "It's not fair - he has all the rare cards that I cannot afford".

A movie quote comes to mind:


Isn't that just like a wop? Brings a knife to a gun fight.

There is no way to ensure fairness. IMHO CZE shouldn't keep such lists at all and if they do, the "main event" shouldn't be limited. With that I rest my case - we'll see what CZE does and live (well) with it :D.

Unhurtable
07-05-2013, 02:07 AM
And any guild is able to recruit a Raid Leader if they so choose. Now if the Raid Leader wants to join them is a different story. Is this 100% fair? Nope, but any guild can recruit a Raid Leader to get the buff if they believe the buff will help them.

Yes this has already been mentioned earlier in this thread. Its among the good sides of the RL bonus, that people without it can make use of its bonuses.



Hardcore raiders recruit people that will benefit them the most. A skilled Raid Leader will be in higher demand then a skilled non-Raid Leader. However, a skilled player will be more sought after then a non-skilled Raid Leader. While the Raid Leader buff is a crutch, it does not make up for skill.

How is this good?


Raid Leader was available to all for a limited time...

You are saying exploits should remain for those who used them and not be available for others?


While I am sure raids have lost their 1st kill award now and again (I know of a few myself), it is not common place for that to happen though.

Regardless of the above, this is getting off on a tangent.

I brought up the exploits to show that competitive raiders do not want a level playing field. They want to get the achievement (and loot) for killing the raid boss by any means required.
Yes, raiders want to kill the raid boss first by any means necessary. Does that mean they don't want a level playing field somehow? You think raiders would be fine delving into an MMORPG that essentially gave people who bought the game at launch an additional 100% health? Its a grayscale, but some raiders cringe at even a 5% increase that they themselves cannot get. The competition in that case just isn't fair.


I know there -are- those people, my question was what insanity drives them.
I suppose you don't think the 100-meter dash is anything special either. After all, you are essentially just playing a game of "who can do this first".


Sorry, I shouldn't have compared to the real world - you're right, this is a game, it's not the real world. Poor choice on my part. I maintain, however, that it is ridiculous (to me) to deny someone the benefits of being an 'early bird' and investing in the game just to make the people who came along later feel that they have a better shot... I guess I'm saying ppl with RL bonuses earned and paid for the edge they have over those who come along later and artificially flattening the playing field by denying them that edge does seem ridiculous to me...

You can still give out benefits to early birds that don't directly affect competition. I too want the people who invested A LOT into this game to get something out of it, but there is a reason they included as few (basically none) direct boosters to PvP as possible, because they want PvP to remain a somewhat leveled playing field. This entire discussion is whether or not they should do the same for the competitive PvE side of things. Nobody is arguing that "the RL bonus should be entirely removed" as far as I know.


My point was, should rules be put in place to make everything essentially equal to the lowest common denominator? Whether that's people who didn't get in early enough in the KS or whether that's people who can't afford faster internet, you are asking for rules that essentially flatten the playing field, giving everyone an equal shot. For that to happen, you have to knock down anyone who has an advantage of any sort (whether that's RL perks or a faster internet connection) all the way down to the weakest guy, so that they have an equal chance... Anyway I think the whole comparison/hypothetical thing is a bit silly here, so I'm happy to drop this point...

I'm asking for rules that essentially flatten the playing field, giving everyone an equal shot in terms of what rules they are affected by. There is always going to be someone who is the best, and any person who plays versus that person will not have a 50% or higher chance of winning.



This is a flawed analogy for two reasons:
1) 20 life vs 30 life is a bit ridiculous - the gap is most definitely not a 50% advantage
2) your analogy assumes that there is another identical game with the exception of the rules difference. There most certainly aren't any identical games out there and there aren't really even any that are very similar, so alternatives are limited.

As such, I would argue that the differential between RL and non-RL would have to be huge for it to drive people to the next best (and significantly different/inferior in other aspects) game. It isn't huge, so this shouldn't be that big of a deal.
1. Yes in retrospect +10 life is a bit much. But even at +1 Life most people would still go to the tournament where they don't have to defeat someone with +1 life more than them at start.
2. No it doesn't require another identical game. Its two different tournaments within the same game.

It doesn't have to be huge (even though its an important factor) because its frequency of use will be important as well. 2-3 years down the line if Hex has a competitor that is a digital TCG-MMO and the RL bonus is of widespread use in competitive PvE, its still going to have a major affect on a persons willingness to start raiding in Hex because they will feel they HAVE to befriend someone who has the RL bonus. If they already have 2 other friends interested, do you see where there is a potential problem? Of course as the use goes down, its going to have a smaller impact. If the RL bonus isn't used by the bleeding-edge teams, then this is not an issue, but that cannot be guaranteed.

ramseytheory
07-05-2013, 04:49 AM
Look, there's an easy solution to this, which is for CZE to turn this sort of competitive PVE into actual tournaments with prizes for the first people to complete the raids. The Raid Leader buff explicitly only applies to non-tournament content, so the problem vanishes.

To people saying that the playing field doesn't have to be level: the entire premise of a game of skill is that it discriminates only on the basis of skill and occasionally resources. Someone being disadvantaged because they don't have the time to get good at the game is the system working as intended. Someone being permanently disadvantaged because they found out about the game thirty days after its announcement isn't. To slightly modify an analogy up-thread, it would be similar to giving everyone who registered for an Alpha tournament in Magic an extra +1 life in all registered events from that point on.

Hatts
07-05-2013, 05:38 AM
Look, there's an easy solution to this, which is for CZE to turn this sort of competitive PVE into actual tournaments with prizes for the first people to complete the raids. The Raid Leader buff explicitly only applies to non-tournament content, so the problem vanishes.


As long as it's opt in I am all for this idea. If there are still competitive awards for the raid

Evil-Lite
07-05-2013, 08:18 AM
How is this good?

Do I need to explain how skill is better then the RL buff is a good thing? Or did you take what I wrote to mean something else then written?



You are saying exploits should remain for those who used them and not be available for others?

When did I say exploits should remain for people that initially used them? Also, why do you think the Raid Leader buff is an exploit?



Yes, raiders want to kill the raid boss first by any means necessary. Does that mean they don't want a level playing field somehow? You think raiders would be fine delving into an MMORPG that essentially gave people who bought the game at launch an additional 100% health? Its a grayscale, but some raiders cringe at even a 5% increase that they themselves cannot get. The competition in that case just isn't fair.

Over embellish much? When you have to go to extremes (100% health) to make your case, you may want to re-evaluate your argument.

If the choice was between the kickstarter exclusive PvE Champions (Mercenaries) or Raid Leader, I would choose the Champions (Mercenaries) every day. While the Raid Leader can use both, the real power is not from the Raid Leader buff, but the Champion (Mercenaries) used. However, I do not see the clamor about Champions and how the "Competitive PvE" should not use any benefit from the kick starter. Only the Raid Leader buff itself.

Yoss
07-05-2013, 10:01 AM
First of all: Kudos to Yoss for keeping the thread civil, despite the potential for it to go off to hateland.
Thank you. It's hard sometimes.


PvE is something very new for CCG tournament players. Warlord had it, GoT to some extent, and of course the WoW TCG. In events for those games - such challenges are a side event.

As usual there is an assumption that could be challenged: I assume that at a high level Hex will primarily be played by such players. Those players with tournament background who don't have the time to "go pro" anymore, will in my opinion drift toward PvE. New "previously point & click MMO" players will likely start out with PvE content to learn the ropes and eventually go into raiding. My point here is that the game itself simply is a lot different mechanically from what MMO players know and are used to. The top level competition will be dominated by pro-level CCG players from Magic and WoW, the MMO part is window dressing to get new players in.
Thank you for clarifying. It now makes sense: you have a different starting assumption than I do about who will be playing competitive PVE. I can't say you are wrong, and I doubt you can say I am because we simply don't know who the competitive PVE players will be. Perhaps it will be a mix of MMO-to-TCG guys (what I've been alluding to) and TCG-to-MMO guys (what you've stated here). Whichever it is, both TCG and MMO players have certain expectations for fairness in internal constraints (what the game imposes), which is not to be confused with fairness in external constraints (the factors outside the game like how much free time you have or how much money or how much skill).


No, [Hatts' proposal] doesn't keep me happy. I might as well clamor to exclude people who have no kids, or no job because I feel that would be an unfair advantage, since they have more time. I am sure would could come up with a few other real life circumstances that hinder you at becoming World First.

To me it's the same argument as "It's not fair - he has all the rare cards that I cannot afford".
Be careful of falling into the trap of confusing external constraints with internal ones. See above.


There is no way to ensure fairness. IMHO CZE shouldn't keep such lists at all and if they do, the "main event" shouldn't be limited.
I agree: there is no way to ensure fairness of external constraints. However, it is not unreasonable to ensure fairness of internal constraints.


Look, there's an easy solution to this, which is for CZE to turn this sort of competitive PVE into actual tournaments with prizes for the first people to complete the raids. The Raid Leader buff explicitly only applies to non-tournament content, so the problem vanishes.

To people saying that the playing field doesn't have to be level: the entire premise of a game of skill is that it discriminates only on the basis of skill and occasionally resources. Someone being disadvantaged because they don't have the time to get good at the game is the system working as intended. Someone being permanently disadvantaged because they found out about the game thirty days after its announcement isn't. To slightly modify an analogy up-thread, it would be similar to giving everyone who registered for an Alpha tournament in Magic an extra +1 life in all registered events from that point on.
Yes.

The Best Proposal Produced So Far In This Thread (link)

Evil-Lite
07-05-2013, 10:12 AM
To people saying that the playing field doesn't have to be level: the entire premise of a game of skill is that it discriminates only on the basis of skill and occasionally resources. Someone being disadvantaged because they don't have the time to get good at the game is the system working as intended. Someone being permanently disadvantaged because they found out about the game thirty days after its announcement isn't. To slightly modify an analogy up-thread, it would be similar to giving everyone who registered for an Alpha tournament in Magic an extra +1 life in all registered events from that point on.

And that is the kicker... Even if you remove the raid Leader buff the Competitive PvE will still not be "leveled."

Yoss
07-05-2013, 10:14 AM
And that is the kicker... Even if you remove the raid Leader buff the Competitive PvE will still not be "leveled."
What, specifically, are you thinking will still remain to be "leveled" in terms of internal constraints?

Vorpal
07-05-2013, 10:19 AM
And that is the kicker... Even if you remove the raid Leader buff the Competitive PvE will still not be "leveled."

Yes it will. The bonus provided by raid leader is the only possible thing worth complaining about.

Everything else can be replicated by puttting more time into the game.

Yoss
07-05-2013, 10:25 AM
The bonus provided by raid leader is the only possible thing worth complaining about.

Everything else can be replicated by puttting more time into the game.
Well, there's also the smaller problem of untradeable mercs, but that's easily fixed by making them tradeable, and that's already being discussed in other threads.

Evil-Lite
07-05-2013, 11:35 AM
What, specifically, are you thinking will still remain to be "leveled" in terms of internal constraints?

I would answer, but you already did that for me. Thanks!


Well, there's also the smaller problem of untradeable mercs, but that's easily fixed by making them tradeable, and that's already being discussed in other threads.

Making mercs trade-able would not fix the problem unfortunately. You have a limited supply of Mercs and (hopefully) a much larger population once the game is released. Not everybody will have access to the Mercs even if they can be traded from account to account (Ecomics on this can be a thread in and of itself). Cryptozoic has already said they are for Kickstarter only and will not be "reprinted." So the only "fair" method would be to not allow Kickstarter Mercs (or Mercs gained from other sources - i.e. Conventions).

Hopefully the "smaller problem" was in relation to the fix (which will not work) and not the power level of the mercs vs the Raid Leader buff.

A fully leveled Merc is more powerful then the Raid Leader buff.

snarvid
07-05-2013, 11:47 AM
Mercs may also simply be a non-issue compared to the PvE champs. If Mercs are "alternate champions that replace your champion in the PVE campaign " that "level up similar to existing champions, but in a faster, more streamlined way," there may not be any need for them at top-tier PvE. One can easily imagine that the 5-of-15 talent choices available for customization of a PvE champ will make them significantly better complements to the constraints of a raid deck.

Yoss
07-05-2013, 11:50 AM
Making mercs tradeable is the best they can do, and they should do it. Then instead of being an insurmountable wall due to an internal constraint, it becomes a pay wall due to an external constraint. Not ideal (for some), but the best we can really hope for, and it would be a level playing field just as much as Legacy MTG is; high barrier to entry but not insurmountable.

EDIT:
And like snarvid said, if the mercs turn out to be weak compared to the built-in champs then mercs won't matter anyway.


The Best Proposal Produced So Far In This Thread (link)

keldrin
07-05-2013, 12:20 PM
Making mercs tradeable is the best they can do, and they should do it. Then instead of being an insurmountable wall due to an internal constraint, it becomes a pay wall due to an external constraint. Not ideal (for some), but the best we can really hope for, and it would be a level playing field just as much as Legacy MTG is; high barrier to entry but not insurmountable.

EDIT:
And like snarvid said, if the mercs turn out to be weak compared to the built-in champs then mercs won't matter anyway.


The Best Proposal Produced So Far In This Thread (link)

Well, I think that they should make mercs tradeable. And when traded, it makes the level reset. This avoids the issue of people selling leveled mercs to new players trying to get a xp edge jump on things. Or, for that matter, the lending of a rare leveled mercenary just to complete one raid or dungeon.
I will say this, if it was setup to be merc tradeable, then I would have purchased a extra king tier, with the express idea of giving the mercenaries from it to friends that come to the game post general release. So, there may be a bit of buyers remorse from people if this gets changed. (but I still really hope it does get changed.)

Yoss
07-05-2013, 12:22 PM
XP reset upon trade would be fine, though I don't think that's necessary. As long as it's tradeable, that's what matters.

Yoss
07-05-2013, 12:36 PM
Coming in from another thread...

PVE mercs are going to be available that you don't have access to. That's already happening. There's not really any point debating it. ... Mercs don't need to be tradeable in-game, you unlock them for achieving certain goals in the pve campaign.
You're right that some PVE content awards will be restricted based on choices you make as you play through. The PVE mercs that are earned from PVE content are not in the same category as exclusives (from KS, events, tournaments, whatever), because anyone can earn the PVE content rewards given the right decision tree for his champion.


I was just offering a method for you to get mercs from cons you didn't attend. The thread is about exclusives from physical events. Those will be available for at least a limited time online if you care to buy them. ... They should give out wacky mercs that are op in some instances that not everyone can get. It'll drive interest in going to events, or achieving certain goals within the game. You have your KS only mercs, other people will have their i won a tournament mercs, and other people will have the i attended an event mercs. Some people might even have the I'm a family member of someone who works at cryptozoic mercs. We should probably just get used to the idea now.
This is one of the things under discussion in this thread. Have a read.

snarvid
07-05-2013, 12:39 PM
I brought up the PvE champ point to separate the ideas of "I want mercs tradeable because it is necessary to balance competitive PvE" and "I want mercs tradeable in service to some other agenda." The former is uncertain at this time, while the latter is certainly your prerogative but belongs more in the "make everything tradeable" thread.

Evil-Lite
07-05-2013, 12:41 PM
Making mercs tradeable is the best they can do, and they should do it.

No, not allowing the Kickstarter Mercs (or others not gained from inside the game) is the best they can do for "fairness" to the competitive PvE setting.

Not that I agree the Mercs (Or RL for that matter) need to be removed. But if you are going to remove an unfair advantage, why stop with just RL?

ramseytheory
07-05-2013, 12:43 PM
Honestly, from everything CZE have said it seems like mercs are intended to shore up weaknesses in your champion and/or play with fun new mechanics rather than replace your champion completely. I'd be quite surprised if the Kickstarter mercenaries (or other exclusive mercenaries, which CZE has confirmed will exist) were important for bleeding edge PVE play.

Gwaer
07-05-2013, 12:50 PM
This thread is a trainwreck. I mean, it starts off simply enough, but then the suggestion of world firsts being termed competitive, to removing rl from the game until you've completed the dungeon... What the actual....

Listen, this is pretty simple. We're not entitled to every card, nor are we entitled to every merc that can make every interesting wacky build work. We will get some cards, and mercs that no one else has access to, and other people will get different ones that we don't have access to.

Tournament PVE will be streamlined in a similar manner to PVP, only certain champs are allowed, they've already got the backend for that disabling RL bonuses during them. Hell it's possible that you'll only have certain PVE cards to choose from in the competitive stuff.

No where does that translate into requiring Mercs to be tradable, or for RL to not function until you have beaten a dungeon for the first time. Just take a step back, and think about it.

Yoss
07-05-2013, 01:01 PM
No, not allowing the Kickstarter Mercs (or others not gained from inside the game) is the best they can do for "fairness" to the competitive PvE setting.
I'll agree to that, actually. No exclusive mercs allowed in "tournament PVE" just like we've been discussing for RL.

And now that I've agreed to that method, and assuming they implement it, I suppose having them tradeable is not so important for PVE balancing and just becomes a discussion about free markets, utility maximization, and so on.

Yoss
07-05-2013, 01:15 PM
Here's the updated proposal, to encompass more than just RL.

There are several modes that would make for interesting "tournament PVE" competition. The most obvious of these is tracking who beats each dungeon or raid first (usually known as "World First"). The other options discussed are: speed runs, deck-restriction runs, and survival modes. In all of these competitive "tournament PVE" modes, it is good to impact other modes of play as little as possible. (In other words, we want people with account-bound goodies to benefit from them as often as possible without compromising a competitive environment.) With that in mind, here is a non-obtrusive list of implementation options:
Maintain an in-game list of the first ones to beat each dungeon or raid. Indicate which ones used account-bound exclusives (possibly showing how many and which ones). Add filtering to the list so that "clean" wins and "exclusive" wins can be viewed separately. Similar lists could be implemented for Speed Runs, Survival Mode, Deck-Restricted, and so on.
If an account-bound bonus (like Raid Leader or a Mercenary) is used in any tournament, alternate competitive achievements are awarded (e.g. "World First with ABE" instead of "World First"; ABE stands for Account Bound Exclusives). Note that exclusive cards are not account bound and so would be allowed, not segregated out.
When a group/individual runs a raid/dungeon that has spots left in a competitive no-exclusives list, prompt them if they want to remove their account-bound stuff and attempt to join the list.


EDIT, 7/11/2013, AM:
Added that dungeons could also track World First. Clarified the example achievement to more clearly indicate account-bound exclusives.

EDIT, 7/11/2013, PM:
Added alternate tournament mode options. Clarified introduction.

Meldryn
07-05-2013, 02:54 PM
Hey friends. I'm Kyle, or Meldryn, or Melaar, whatever you prefer. I played WoW from release, and was a full time raiding member of Premonition for two years of that time. For those of you who don't know, Premo was the top guild in the US raiding scene for a long time, gaining many world firsts. I'm also a Hex backer (DC/King, wasn't able to snipe PP or GK).

I think we can all agree that it's super awesome that someone is building a digital TCG with PvE in it. (Otherwise, none of us would care about this thread) Hopefully I can help everyone understand about high end PvE competition. Maybe I can also convince you that Hex should enable it.


I know there -are- those people, my question was what insanity drives them.

Many of the most sublime experiences of my life have been seeking world firsts. I can't really hope to instill in you the same feeling, but I can try. Take whatever game you love most for its depth of strategy and tactical execution. Maybe it's MtG, maybe it's Counter-Strike, maybe it's some tabletop game. Extrapolate that out to a multiplayer experience, where you and your closest friends can collaborate. Already we're to the place where most PvE players get excited. Hex will have this, if CZE can deliver. This is what makes us salivate, and argue on the internet.

Now, take it a step further. Imagine you can exercise your strategic knowledge, tactical prowess, and deep teamwork to compete with other similar groups for glory. That's what chasing world firsts in PvE is about. The thrill of that hunt, the sublime flow of perfectly executing a complex strategy with precise tactics to achieve something that no one else can.

What hardcore PvE'ers will look for in Hex PvE is that same experience that was possible in WoW. So what made WoW the best game to do this "world first hunt" thing that is such an exceptional experience? What about it enabled a competition that made people want to give all their free time, even take off work to take part in?

The first and most important thing is exceptionally crafted encounters. I think of them as some of the most deeply interesting strategic puzzles that I've ever faced. The second part is challenging tactics. Very few people in WoW were capable of executing all roles and classes with the precision and excellence required to compete at the highest level. Lastly, and crucially, Blizzard made high end raiding possible by tuning encounters and game mechanics so that the only thing affecting your ability to compete was your willingness to spend time to acquire the prerequisites; skill and gear.

I believe that Hex has the potential to have a similar, if not more, suitable environment for this kind of competition. The combinations of different strategies and tactics in a TCG format are staggering. We all know this from MtG. Now Hex is adding three decks, and an arbitrary number and kind of enemy decks. Even further, it's adding gear and gems for cards! This is a super tasty mix for some amazing, hard, and cerebral challenges.

My vision for Hex PvE is to have more accessible ways of getting the same experience I was able to have in the chase for WoW world firsts. Let's face it, at 28, I don't have time to farm consumables, or whatever the latest time sink is that enables raiding. Hex enables this vision in a few ways. It allows spending any kind of currency you have, either time or money or some combination, to attain the prerequisites. Secondly, it has reduced the scope of raiding to three people, basically removing the people management necessary to running a high end guild. (In the very high end guilds, you actually have interview processes for potential members, loot allocation management, and scheduling) The final missing piece is ensuring that the only barriers to entry are non-exclusive. This thread is about making sure that CZE adds or confirms that final piece.

Some very cogent arguments have been made from various people about the dangers that doing this adds. From what I can see, the main danger here is that RL backers will not get the return on investment promised. I think we all agree that those who chose to back RL should be given exactly what they were promised. I would go further and say, as much as possible they should have equal "power" levels as other backers. We can have this, and also have high-end raiding. The details are an interesting puzzle to solve, but it is solvable.

Honestly, what it really comes down to is some RL backers feel that they bought a mechanical advantage in all raiding. This is not true. If it was, CZE would not have added specific verbiage to restrict it. Even with this restricted definition the RL buff is a huge advantage for competitive raiding. Here's why. If the "tournament" modes are sufficiently hard, the very high end competitive teams will practice strategies and deck builds against the "non-tournament" modes. In this scenario, RL is still a much sought after buff, because it allows the team to survive much longer in the encounter. This is actually the key to high level raiding, because the acquisition of more information about the encounter is how you develop the strategies that will succeed. In this capacity, the RL bonus acts very similarly to the DC and GL bonuses in that it increases time efficiency without altering the rules of the tournament event.

If Hex does grow a competitive raiding scene and CZE chooses to allow RL to be a relevant advantage in tournament mode, it will force one (or more!) of every three competitive players to buy or already own a RL flagged account. There's two problems with this. Firstly there simply aren't enough RL flagged accounts to support a viable competitive raiding scene. Secondly, you would not be able to play with whom you wanted, if they were not RL flagged, since CZE has explicitly stated they do not want to enable account trading.

That's not the end of the world, I'd still enjoy PvP tournaments, and I'd still probably spend the time to beat all the dungeons and raids. However, PvE would be much less interesting to me and others like me. This would lower engagement and potentially stifle the PvE growth of Hex. That's what's at stake. Now, you can argue that it doesn't matter to you whether the PvE side of this digital TCG succeeds, but I think that's short sighted. The more people playing and paying, the more money the devs can pour into new content and exciting events, and the more fun we will all have together!

Unhurtable
07-05-2013, 03:01 PM
Do I need to explain how skill is better then the RL buff is a good thing? Or did you take what I wrote to mean something else then written?
I was referring to the fact that Raid Leaders of equal skill would be worth more than non-Raid Leaders. I could've narrowed down the quote but I guess I felt at the time it was implied.


When did I say exploits should remain for people that initially used them? Also, why do you think the Raid Leader buff is an exploit?

"Why do you think the Raid Leader buff is an exploit" is a loaded question, it implies I think the Raid Leader buff is an exploit. You are justifying the Raid Leader bonus in a competitive environment because "it was available to everyone at one point", which could be used to justify that exploits should remain usable to those who used it before it got fixed. After all, the exploit was available to everyone at one point.


Over embellish much? When you have to go to extremes (100% health) to make your case, you may want to re-evaluate your argument.

If the choice was between the kickstarter exclusive PvE Champions (Mercenaries) or Raid Leader, I would choose the Champions (Mercenaries) every day. While the Raid Leader can use both, the real power is not from the Raid Leader buff, but the Champion (Mercenaries) used. However, I do not see the clamor about Champions and how the "Competitive PvE" should not use any benefit from the kick starter. Only the Raid Leader buff itself.

Is 5% an extreme? I scaled it down to 5%. "The competition in that case just isn't fair" did not refer to the 100% health advantage (even though its true), it referred to the 5% example.

What does PvE Champions being potentially more powerful than the Raid Leader have to do with whether or not the Raid Leader bonus is unfair? I argued earlier that all of the bonuses that amplify PvE that are exclusive are unfair in competitive PvE, and essentially said that the only way to have a completely fair PvE environment would be to have a seperate server for PvE only without any KS bonuses.

ramseytheory
07-05-2013, 04:23 PM
Good things

Extremely well-written and well-argued - I completely agree!

Yoss
07-08-2013, 02:23 PM
That's not a post, Meldryn, that's an article, and one of the best I've seen.

Xenavire
07-08-2013, 03:22 PM
To be perfectly honest, I can't be bothered reading this whole thread just to find out if this has been mentioned, but has anyone at all considered that the raid leader buff might be a drop in the bucket compared to champion abilities?

Not to mention mercs, etc etc.

And some of those draws will need to be discarded, not to mention a person can be a raid leader and bad at the game. And how many raid leaders will be actively raiding? We have 1k Grand kings, and a large portion of those seemed to be in it for PvP, and if we factor everything together, there will be a limited amount of active and good raid leaders.

I am not claiming it is a non-issue, but it seems like less of an issue than this thread suggests. I mean what gaurantee does anyone have that a certain group will beat a raid first just because of this buff? Each raid member would still need to beat the prerequisite dungeon (which raid leaders have no buffs for), and they would need to have good enough equipment and cards... I would be more worried about the producers, and there are only 14 of them.

So I don't see an issue with letting people try to get world firsts with raid leader buffs - if they can get through a dungeon that fast and get together a good team with good cards and equipment that fast - guess what, they deserve it, tiny buff or not.

Kilo24
07-08-2013, 04:12 PM
To be perfectly honest, I can't be bothered reading this whole thread just to find out if this has been mentioned, but has anyone at all considered that the raid leader buff might be a drop in the bucket compared to champion abilities?

Not to mention mercs, etc etc.

I strongly doubt that a purely free 1 health per turn that can be sacrificed once to negate any damage will be a drop in the bucket. I think that champion abilities are going to be significantly more powerful than it (based on the warrior preview), but champions would have to be ludicrously powerful for that large of a boost to be a "drop in the bucket."

Furthermore, every single merc I've seen thus far would be substantially improved by it. I can't think of a merc who wouldn't benefit from having it replace one of his abilities.

The extra card in hand is a decent boost, but not a critical one. The second and third raid leaders aren't a major benefit IMO without graveyard abuse.

Xenavire
07-08-2013, 05:17 PM
The 1 life per turn is miniscule (I have played many lifegain decks, it is hard to justify any 1 per turn life gain cards unless you lack anything else.) That leaves only the one time damage dodge, which is equal to MtG Fog (a one green mana instant.) If bosses are that good, I think the effect would be nothing more than a stall, and if that stall doesn't give you a chance to gain board position, it is not going to help.

I personally think Spectral lotus and other acceleration effcts will be significantly more powerful, and Champion perks and charge powers as well. I am not saying it is a bad card, but the number of situations where it will be the vital game winning card are likely to be nearly nil. And let's not forget, we are talking about a race to the top, not a liesurely stroll - they need to be quick through those dungeons or that free fog and a few extra health will not make a difference.

Kilo24
07-08-2013, 07:24 PM
The Raid Leader bonus is free and starts on turn 1. Comparing it to Fog only works if Fog takes no deck space, starts outside of your hand and gets put in your hand on every game start, and costs 0. The big deal is not that it's comparable to other cards or anything in the game, it's that it's a significant effect for free.

It's not a game-winning effect; that's definitely true. It doesn't replace a good deck and certainly won't win you the game despite your deck. But either one of its effects can easily mean staying alive for an extra turn, and that may give you the time you need to get to a stable or advantageous board position. Add on that every single member of a raid gets the perk and can target an ally to save him, and it starts looking pretty good.

Maybe Spectral Lotus will be better than it. Maybe some other overpowered PvE card will too. Maybe not. That doesn't matter, because it's not competing with them in any way.

Xenavire
07-08-2013, 07:38 PM
Yes, but the usefulness of the fog effect relies on certain factors - I mean, by the time you would use it, you could have drawn a fog and have plenty of spare mana. It is nice to not have to draw it, but when you consider how crazy the PvE decks will have to be, drawing something might not be an issue - and you might just want more fog effects to survive.

I just think it wont be the tipping point for winning a game. Maybe if it was a draw engine like howling mine, or was a permanent 'Pay X amount of mana: Prevent all damage this turn', but at this point it seems like a nice perk and not much else. I would rather have three good players than 3 mediocre raid leaders.

However... If a broken combo would arise for a 1 turn kill (even if it doesn't actually kill the boss in one turn thanks to phases) because of that card, then I would think it should be removed from all competitive PvE.

Kilo24
07-08-2013, 08:00 PM
If you'd have drawn a Fog, that would have taken up your card draw. Judging by the ominous warnings of "No, the raid bosses will be *really* hard, guys" from Crypto, I sincerely doubt card draws will be taken lightly until after the battle's almost already decided (in most decks, at least). Card advantage is a major point of contention in PvP, and I don't think that would change so dramatically in PvE.

Whether or not it's a tipping point for a game is up to the deck, the raid boss, everyone else's deck, and what's happened in the game itself. But I'd be very surprised if a turn of player invincibility or even just 3 extra life by turn 3 wouldn't have won a few more games for any serious MTG player. And I doubt Hex will be different, especially if the effect is basically tripled.

I don't really know the bosses that they're planning on, but I do have a feeling that powerful abilities with long setup times that one-shot almost any single player will be in play. That's basically what the Raid Leader sacrifice ability is made for; that, and taking an all-out attack to the face with no effect and swinging back with all your creatures next turn.

I'd rather have three good players than three mediocre raid leaders as well; but, again, player skill and the raid leader perk are not correlated with each-other.

I doubt it would be critical part of a 1-turn kill; I don't see them making a "Do 1000 damage to everyone" card or reviving Channel from MTG in such a way that 1 life would tip the balance. It's pretty much just a decent chunk of survivability.

Evil-Lite
07-08-2013, 08:07 PM
All I know is that 1,000 Dungeon Crawlers where sold and only 151 Raid Leaders. While not 100% proof positive, I will lean towards Dungeon Crawler getting more World/Server firsts then Raid Leader (Raid achievements included).

People can argue how over powered Raid Leader is. When it counted, people put their money on Dungeon Crawler, not the Raid Leader, for a PvE boost.

Xenavire
07-08-2013, 08:12 PM
But pointing out the difficulty ramp up and then comparing it to turn 3 MtG plays is not a good analysis. If the boss is hard enough to make a fog draw worthless, I imagine it is putting on constant pressure - any 1 turn fog is going to be a poor defence. Sure, it is good for that turn, but it is no counterspell or wath of god. If you can't make a good play off that turn, you may as well have not had it.

And I really think PvE decks are going to be just as 'bonkers' as Cory keeps saying. I think they will be designed around getting card advantage as fast as possible, and all sorts of acceleration, just to tip the scales before the boss can gain dangerous board position. In those cases, drawing a for might be very handy - you are already generating card advantage, and if used right, a fog is almost like a free turn.

So while it is not worthless, it is probably worth less than people give it credit for. It is a late game play, and if you can't make that count, you already lost.

Yoss
07-08-2013, 08:35 PM
All I know is that 1,000 Dungeon Crawlers where sold and only 151 Raid Leaders. While not 100% proof positive, I will lean towards Dungeon Crawler getting more World/Server firsts then Raid Leader (Raid achievements included).

People can argue how over powered Raid Leader is. When it counted, people put their money on Dungeon Crawler, not the Raid Leader, for a PvE boost.
I skipped RL for three reasons, none of which are "overpowered for tournament PVE (competitive PVE)". First because the "non-tournament PVE" clause means RL will be blocked for competitive PVE. Second because the ill-defined "non-tournament PVE" clause meant that I didn't know what I was buying; CZE is fully within their rights to define that clause any way they wish and until they do, no one really knows how often RL will be blocked and cannot reasonably complain when the definition is announced. (Now, I hope they don't define it into oblivion even though they could. Meldryn's suggestion seems quite reasonable to put its power level right in line with DC.) Third because DC gives time efficiency rather than mechanical advantage; I want to play at full difficulty even when it's non-tournament.

Yoss
07-08-2013, 08:40 PM
So while it is not worthless, it is probably worth less than people give it credit for. It is a late game play, and if you can't make that count, you already lost.
The argument does not depend on how big or small the RL advantage is. It could be +1 HP/turn or +100. It could be 1 time Fog or Fog every time you pay 1 mana. It could be +1 card opening, or +20. The principle is the same: imbalance of internal constraints is anti-competitive. The only difference is a matter of degree, not of principle.

In any case, RL came with the "non-tournament PVE" clause, which will almost certainly block it from World First attempts. What we can debate is mostly just particulars of what the blocking will look like.

Xenavire
07-08-2013, 08:54 PM
OK, on principle I agree - it is an advantage. But I ask if the advantage is so clear and powerful that it makes it significantly easier? Like I said, you still need to clear the dungeon before you can even enter the raid, and you have to have good enough cards/equipment, and another two players who have done the same, all within a time constrait directly affected by the progress of others. Considering all of this, do you think it would be fair to remove anything from them?

If their accomplishments are tainted even considering all of this, then it would be only fair to them and to everyone else to disable the buff during the world first period. But they are so much the minority, I think it will be a non-issue.

Kietay
07-08-2013, 09:09 PM
I skipped RL for three reasons, none of which are "overpowered for tournament PVE (competitive PVE)". First because the "non-tournament PVE" clause means RL will be blocked for competitive PVE. Second because the ill-defined "non-tournament PVE" clause meant that I didn't know what I was buying; CZE is fully within their rights to define that clause any way they wish and until they do, no one really knows how often RL will be blocked and cannot reasonably complain when the definition is announced. (Now, I hope they don't define it into oblivion even though they could. Meldryn's suggestion seems quite reasonable to put its power level right in line with DC.) Third because DC gives time efficiency rather than mechanical advantage; I want to play at full difficulty even when it's non-tournament.

You know you can turn the raid leader bonus off at any time right? c:

Kilo24
07-08-2013, 09:43 PM
I skipped RL for three reasons, none of which are "overpowered for tournament PVE (competitive PVE)"...
Personally, Raid Leader and Dungeon Crawler were the main reasons I got a Grand King. I was really leery of buying advantages in gameplay as I am with any Free-to-play game, but the situation changes a bit when you've got two other friends. If Raid Leader ends up being the difference between a victory and defeat, then that means the difference between a bundle of loot for everyone and a wasted attempt. And if you're farming the boss instead of looking for a challenge, RL can add an extra bit of reliability when the luck of the draw turns against you. I think it's a sizable enough advantage, that this will happen semi-frequently, though of course others disagree (and frankly, they have as much directly relevant evidence I do since the game isn't out yet).


OK, on principle I agree - it is an advantage. But I ask if the advantage is so clear and powerful that it makes it significantly easier? Like I said, you still need to clear the dungeon before you can even enter the raid, and you have to have good enough cards/equipment, and another two players who have done the same, all within a time constrait directly affected by the progress of others. Considering all of this, do you think it would be fair to remove anything from them?

If their accomplishments are tainted even considering all of this, then it would be only fair to them and to everyone else to disable the buff during the world first period. But they are so much the minority, I think it will be a non-issue.
I'd prefer the solution mentioned earlier by... well, somebody who I'm sure Yoss has linked to: Record world firsts with the exclusive advantages they used to get it. If RL's not a major advantage, nobody will use it when trying to compete for world-first kills because it tarnishes the victory. If it is a major advantage, then the "World-First Using Exclusives" won't be nearly as meaningful a title as "World-First with No Exclusives", but still Meldryn has a good point: it'll be useful for practice for the "real" run.

I doubt I'll be trying for world firsts personally (even though I do far prefer Hex's strategy-focused gameplay to the standard MMOs' real-time-coordination-focused gameplay), so decisions made on that front personally don't bother me.

Yoss
07-08-2013, 09:52 PM
stuff
I'm guessing you've never been in a top 10 raiding guild for WoW. I haven't either. Meldryn has and therefore has the credentials to say what's true about that part of an MMO. Please go read his post (or read it again if you already did once).


You know you can turn the raid leader bonus off at any time right? c:
If I never turn it on, what's the point of having it? :p

@Kilo:
You're pretty much spot on with my thoughts. Oh, and here's the link. It has both Hatts' proposal and Meldryn's article.

Kilo24
07-08-2013, 10:05 PM
If I never turn it on, what's the point of having it? :p

Meldryn had a decent point that it would be useful for practicing/testing decks against raid bosses; it's an advantage that probably won't screw with the deck behavior much more than saving your ass every now and then (lifegain white and suicide black may not apply). I'd add that it'd be useful in farming, or in helping people who can't manage top-tier decks or maxxed champions but still want the loot/experience from the boss. In any of those cases, the difficulty isn't the main thing you're looking for and you'd be free to turn it on.

Of course, if those are the only situations you'd use it in that may mean that RL is worth much less to you than to people who just care about the victory and not the difficulty. Kind of a moot point now with the Kickstarter over, but that may just mean you're not really the target audience.

AstaSyneri
07-09-2013, 01:42 AM
Taking RLs out of the picture for raids would imho (as Meldryn pointed out in his post/article) absolutely invalidate the RL tier. It would indeed make me angry, if I couldn't use it in all raids.

For those who want to go for World First (I'd love that challenge, but by the time I get to play the game the World's Firsts are probably all gone): There are enough RLs out there for you to recruit, or guilds who have them to join.

As an analogy: You wouldn't demand that all raids have to be played without rares either to be considered a "real World First", would you?

Unhurtable
07-09-2013, 02:28 AM
Taking RLs out of the picture for raids would imho (as Meldryn pointed out in his post/article) absolutely invalidate the RL tier. It would indeed make me angry, if I couldn't use it in all raids.

For those who want to go for World First (I'd love that challenge, but by the time I get to play the game the World's Firsts are probably all gone): There are enough RLs out there for you to recruit, or guilds who have them to join.

As an analogy: You wouldn't demand that all raids have to be played without rares either to be considered a "real World First", would you?

AFAIK nobody is arguing that RL should be taken out of all raids. That just sounds insane to me.

That is one of the issues. If the RL bonus turns out to be a significant (or even a minor boost) people are going to feel forced into playing with RL players. If I bring along 2 friends and we start playing PvE hardcore, we might be at a major disadvantage that we 3 essentially cannot remove since neither of us can get the RL bonus. Again, the RL bonus could be miniscule in which case we would be at a smaller disadvantage (and hence feel less forced to play with someone who has the RL bonus). Right now its impossible to know how much of an impact the RL bonus will have on competitive PvE.

Can rares be acquired by everyone? In that case its not the same. This entire thread would essentially never have been made (or maybe had a slight topic change to discuss other exclusives from the KS) if the RL bonus could be acquired by everyone, with the people with the RL KS getting them much earlier than everyone else (as in they start with it and don't have to "work for it" essentially).

Evil-Lite
07-09-2013, 06:13 AM
I skipped RL for three reasons, none of which are "overpowered for tournament PVE (competitive PVE)". First because the "non-tournament PVE" clause means RL will be blocked for competitive PVE. Second because the ill-defined "non-tournament PVE" clause meant that I didn't know what I was buying; CZE is fully within their rights to define that clause any way they wish and until they do, no one really knows how often RL will be blocked and cannot reasonably complain when the definition is announced. (Now, I hope they don't define it into oblivion even though they could. Meldryn's suggestion seems quite reasonable to put its power level right in line with DC.) Third because DC gives time efficiency rather than mechanical advantage; I want to play at full difficulty even when it's non-tournament.

At least we agree :) Raid Leader is not over powered for competitive PvE.

As to what Crypto defines as "non-tournament" PvE... We will have to wait and see.

This is what we know so far:

1) PvE Tournaments will include a "Wild West" format. This is not to say Wild West is the only PvE tournament, it is the only one we know of at this time (unless I missed something).

2) Raid Leader buff is used when in a fight that allows 3 players vs the computer and is not used when doing normal dungeons by yourself.

Stok3d
07-09-2013, 06:22 AM
If Hex does grow a competitive raiding scene and CZE chooses to allow RL to be a relevant advantage in tournament mode, it will force one (or more!) of every three competitive players to buy or already own a RL flagged account. There's two problems with this. Firstly there simply aren't enough RL flagged accounts to support a viable competitive raiding scene. Secondly, you would not be able to play with whom you wanted, if they were not RL flagged, since CZE has explicitly stated they do not want to enable account trading.

That's not the end of the world, I'd still enjoy PvP tournaments, and I'd still probably spend the time to beat all the dungeons and raids. However, PvE would be much less interesting to me and others like me. This would lower engagement and potentially stifle the PvE growth of Hex. That's what's at stake. Now, you can argue that it doesn't matter to you whether the PvE side of this digital TCG succeeds, but I think that's short sighted. The more people playing and paying, the more money the devs can pour into new content and exciting events, and the more fun we will all have together!


Your point is a valid one. However, I have another solution that needs to be considered and believe it a win/win. See below:


I propose what I believe as a better compromise-solution is to leave in the RL blessing and instead add "buffs" like other MMOs. This enables everyone to still get this particular +1 card in hand perk and w/e comes to mind to CZE as a buff (on a temp basis--basically either for the individual or raid only lasting until you die/leave current dungeon/raid or a set timer duration like 2hrs). This is a Win for the "have-nots" and a win for the "haves". RL then don't lose their perk, they just then consider having a lifetime of that particular "free" buff. As an added bonus for the game, these buffs could possibly be purchased with gold, crafted, etc. Basically, they could double as a gold/item sink which is much needed in one form or another.

Hatts
07-09-2013, 07:50 AM
I propose what I believe as a better compromise-solution is to leave in the RL blessing and instead add "buffs" like other MMOs. This enables everyone to still get this particular +1 card in hand perk and w/e comes to mind to CZE as a buff (on a temp basis--basically either for the individual or raid only lasting until you die/leave current dungeon/raid or a set timer duration like 2hrs). This is a Win for the "have-nots" and a win for the "haves". RL then don't lose their perk, they just then consider having a lifetime of that particular "free" buff. As an added bonus for the game, these buffs could possibly be purchased with gold, crafted, etc. Basically, they could double as a gold/item sink which is much needed in one form or another.

I suggested this as well (either earlier in this thread or in the PvE Consumable buff (http://forums.cryptozoic.com/showthread.php?t=25989)thread I made) but it was rejected by raid leaders who didn't want their bonus replicated. The fact that the buff would be temporary and applied to 1 person was enough of a difference for some but not others.

Xenavire
07-09-2013, 08:24 AM
With so few pure raid leaders, and the rest being GK and higher, I think this one buff being temporarily disabled, or reproduced, doesn't seem like a big deal. If this was a desirable perk more people would have bought into RL.

But I think tweaking old suggestions and hearing new ones may give insight into a different better way to do it. I personally doubt the advantage will be noticeable, but on the offchance that it is... I am sure something can and will be done.

I do think that PvE cards and champions are going to be fairly overwhelming. Loog at Moment of Glory (I think that is the one.) Once you hit a certain threshold you have a chance to play it from your deck - sure it is RNG, but it is technically card advantage every time it the effect triggers. So if everything is so powerful, it stands to reason this might not factor into end game much at all.

But I still hold that any RL would need to be at the top of their game to pass through dungeons fast enough for the buff to even have a chance at affecting world rankings.

Vorpal
07-09-2013, 08:34 AM
The whole point of the raid leader tier is to be useful in raids. It was already considered by many to be one of the weakest KS tiers.

Now people want to weaken it even further?

If you are some guild that seriously wants to organize and compete for world first boss kills, you should have either had someone get raid leader or you should find a raid leader.

It would be much more palatable to introduce some kind of raid leader bonus attainable in game (say, from a levelled up guild or something) than make the already weak raid leader tier be worth even less.

Gorgol
07-09-2013, 09:37 AM
Yes, please disable RL is competitive PVE. It is a bs OP buff and never should have existed. I don't have it therefore no one should. It needs to be 100% completely balanced playfield between my competitors and me. I shouldn't be forced to be at a permanent disadvantage just because I didn't have the money to buy it when it was available. Plus think of all the new people who will join the game and how they would feel. They would be crushed and could very well just quit when they find out they can never be equal with those people. Why should competitive PVE be the ugly redheaded stepchild to competitive PVP? There is no such thing in PVP why should it exist here in PVE?

Yoss
07-09-2013, 10:24 AM
Taking RLs out of the picture for raids would imho (as Meldryn pointed out in his post/article) absolutely invalidate the RL tier.
Meldryn did not say anything of the sort. He said primarily three things about RL, each given its own paragraph.

1) RL should be defined carefully so that RL backers get good value
2) RL was defined with a "non-tournament" limitation, and RL should not be allowed for World Firsts
3) RL would still be very powerful even if not allowed for World Firsts


At least we agree :) Raid Leader is not over powered for competitive PvE.
You're missing my point, which is exactly opposite of what you seem to think it is. I said the reason I avoided RL was not that it's overpowered. Meaning, regardless of power level I had other reasons for avoiding it. I thought then and still do that it is overpowered if allowed in competitive.

The rest of your post looks fine; clean statement of facts with no attempts to extrapolate.


The whole point of the raid leader tier is to be useful in raids. It was already considered by many to be one of the weakest KS tiers.

Now people want to weaken it even further?
We are not asking to "weaken it even further". It was defined with a "non-tournament PVE" clause that was and is undefined. Therefore, anyone who bought RL was taking a risk on what the eventual definition would be and cannot reasonably be upset with one defnition versus another. Defining RL to not work in World First Tournaments is the most obvious extention of what we know and is completely in line with what RL backers should have expected. Even with such a definition, RL is still good. Meldryn talked about both of these points.

Stok3d
07-09-2013, 11:46 AM
I wonder how someone would react if they pledged Pro or Collector and later realized that missing out on the RL perk was actually something they'll kick themselves for? Should a person proceed continue to now publicly bash this perk in hopes that CZE will destroy it's usefulness? Read This Post (http://forums.cryptozoic.com/showthread.php?t=25983&page=16&p=270602&viewfull=1#post270602) for a way to make it win/win with buffs. I guess this isn't enough after this person who pledged collector or pro realizes now that they'll have to make or purchase a +1 buff to be on equal playing ground?

To those seriously concerned about world firsts, I suggest you get the names of all the 14x Producers and DDOS them the first week. All kidding aside, someone starting off with 4x sets of gear & pve cards is further at an advantage than anything considered in this game. So Producers need nerfed too? I presume any KS pledge that provides a buff that you don't own needs nerfed. Got it.

Lastly, someone please send a link where achievements are being broken down and "world firsts" are being awarded. I missed that one...

Unhurtable
07-09-2013, 12:03 PM
Yes, please disable RL is competitive PVE. It is a bs OP buff and never should have existed. I don't have it therefore no one should. It needs to be 100% completely balanced playfield between my competitors and me.

Good job missing the point entirely. But I suppose if you have to strawman to think you have the stronger position, good for you.

Gorgol
07-09-2013, 12:12 PM
Lastly, someone please send a link where achievements are being broken down and "world firsts" are being awarded. I missed that one...
There isn't currently mentioned. This is all speculation based off of "non-tournament PVE" from the RL perk. Because it says non-tournament PVE that means that there will be tournament PVE and therefore the logical conclusion is that means World-first will be a thing.

Gwaer
07-09-2013, 12:16 PM
There isn't currently mentioned. This is all speculation based off of "non-tournament PVE" from the RL perk. Because it says non-tournament PVE that means that there will be tournament PVE and therefore the logical conclusion is that means World-first will be a thing.
world first isn't a tournament by default, this is a pretty big stretch, I wouldn't be comfortable making it, and I make a lot of logical stretches.

ShadowTycho
07-09-2013, 12:24 PM
i imagine, all that is necessary to make pve competitive is to make the "world first (without raid lead)" the tracked category, make it star your deck like the pvp tourney winners.

if you want to have your win count, you have to turn off our buff. that just means you can practice with it one and use it for farm(these are huge advantages in pve.)

Yoss
07-09-2013, 12:26 PM
@Stoked:
I've said before that Producers are fine; they get nothing that can't be gotten elsewise. Granted they'll get it right away, so they have a big time advantage, but time is already an external constraint, not an internal (mechanical) one. Money buys time in this game in many ways. Just the simple fact of being able to buy cards in boosters and AH proves that, and those are fundamental building blocks of the game. But there's no unfairness in it because both time and money are external constraints, which no reasonable person should expect to be totally equalized. We might argue about attempting to equalize external constraints, but as many others have pointed out (usually from the other side of the debate from me, oddly enough) you cannot and indeed should not ever expect external constraints to be equalized. Internal constraints, on the other hand, can and should be equalized. Not least because one of the reasons we make games is to escape somewhat from the external world where life isn't fair into a world we've created where things can be controlled.

Your insinuation is correct and already discussed in this thread previously: they have not announced much for PVE, so we do not know for sure that there will be tracking of PVE achievements. We have only very limited data in this area from which to extrapolate. We know that the RL bonus only applies in "non-tournament PVE". From this we can safely assume that "tournament PVE" exists. From there we (not unreasonably) speculate (and request) that "tounament PVE" include races for World First (second, third, etc) achievements in both raids and dungeons.

Could we be wrong in that final leap of speculation? Sure, but can you offer a more likely definition of "tournament PVE" that RL could but will not apply to? If you can, you'll be the first in this thread to do so.

@ST:
Yes, that's the proposal. See post 133. Note that while the alternate "buff" proposal (most recently posted by Stok3d) would work for equalization of internal constraints, it likely violates one of the hard facts: RL will only apply to "non-tournament PVE".

ShadowTycho
07-09-2013, 12:29 PM
@yoss
is that what you meant by tournament pve? because that means something else to me. i remember the special raids that were setup at blizzcon, always wanted to participate in one.

Yoss
07-09-2013, 12:32 PM
@yoss
is that what you meant by tournament pve? because that means something else to me. i remember the special raids that were setup at blizzcon, always wanted to participate in one.
I am not familiar with that. Links?

Xenavire
07-09-2013, 12:32 PM
Not to be annoying, but I wonder if competetive PvE will ever be fair? I mean RNG can cripple even the best player, even if skill is the main deciding factor, and a card game is much harder to control the moving parts of than a traditional MMORPG.

I mean, getting a dead draw could be the line between winning and losing, even in the best of decks... So I just wonder how valid a world first would be, in the long run?

I doubt a random newb could waltz in and play a perfect game, but a race through RNG might mean a player of lesser skill could beat out a player of higher skill through sheer luck. (Well, teams, not players, but RNG only needs to cripple one member for the whole game to go bad.)

This topic is no less valid, but I just wonder. It is certainly a more uncertain area than a typical MMO.

Yoss
07-09-2013, 12:37 PM
@Xenavire:
You're right about everything except the first sentence. The RNG, while intruducing a large degree of luck, is fair; it works the same for everyone. Now, we could argue about how much variance a game should or should not have, but the main point is that everyone has the same variance (as long as RL isn't turned on).

Evil-Lite
07-09-2013, 12:44 PM
Meldryn did not say anything of the sort. He said primarily three things about RL, each given its own paragraph.

1) RL should be defined carefully so that RL backers get good value
2) RL was defined with a "non-tournament" limitation, and RL should not be allowed for World Firsts
3) RL would still be very powerful even if not allowed for World Firsts


1) I agree RL should be defined. Would make this thread go away :-) Oh wait... It does, it can be used for all multi-player non-tournament events.
2) Tournament != Competitive.
3) Where did Cryptozoic state that RL can not be used for competitive PvE? There is only one exception for RL and that is tournaments. Well... That and solo content, but that was more of a clarification on Cryptozoic's part.



You're missing my point, which is exactly opposite of what you seem to think it is. I said the reason I avoided RL was not that it's overpowered. Meaning, regardless of power level I had other reasons for avoiding it. I thought then and still do that it is overpowered if allowed in competitive.

The rest of your post looks fine; clean statement of facts with no attempts to extrapolate.

And I thought the :) gave it away... Maybe I needed more :) :)

;) (BTW, you did see my smiley above right, after the 1?)



We are not asking to "weaken it even further". It was defined with a "non-tournament PVE" clause that was and is undefined. Therefore, anyone who bought RL was taking a risk on what the eventual definition would be and cannot reasonably be upset with one defnition versus another. Defining RL to not work in World First Tournaments is the most obvious extention of what we know and is completely in line with what RL backers should have expected. Even with such a definition, RL is still good. Meldryn talked about both of these points.

Who turned world firsts into a tournament?

Achievements are a competition amongst players to get them before another does or to get them at all. This does not mean they are a tournament.

Anytime a person goes to a tournament event they should not be expecting to use the RL buff. However, arbitrarily stating something is a tournament does not make it a tournament.

Evil-Lite
07-09-2013, 12:47 PM
There isn't currently mentioned. This is all speculation based off of "non-tournament PVE" from the RL perk. Because it says non-tournament PVE that means that there will be tournament PVE and therefore the logical conclusion is that means World-first will be a thing.

No... Logical conclusion would be they where referring to "Wild West" formats aka: PvE tournaments and other type of tournaments that use the PvE cards.

Yoss
07-09-2013, 12:48 PM
Who turned world firsts into a tournament?
No one did. I clearly labelled it as speculation AND invited anyone to offer a more plausible extrapolation. To quote myself:


they have not announced much for PVE, so we do not know for sure that there will be tracking of PVE achievements. We have only very limited data in this area from which to extrapolate. We know that the RL bonus only applies in "non-tournament PVE". From this we can safely assume that "tournament PVE" exists. From there we (not unreasonably) speculate (and request) that "tounament PVE" include races for World First (second, third, etc) achievements in both raids and dungeons.

Could we be wrong in that final leap of speculation? Sure, but can you offer a more likely definition of "tournament PVE" that RL could but will not apply to? If you can, you'll be the first in this thread to do so.

Yoss
07-09-2013, 12:51 PM
No... Logical conclusion would be they where referring to "Wild West" formats aka: PvE tournaments and other type of tournaments that use the PvE cards.
Saying that RL does not apply to PVE/PVE Wild West tournaments is obvious to the point that it's also obvious that that's not what the RL description refers to. RL only works in raids (obvious). Wild West is not a raid (again obvious). Therefore RL does not work in Wild West. The "non-tournament" clause is not needed for that obvious logic. If we assume CZE put the "non-tournament" clause there to actually mean something and not just to waste space, then we must conclude that there is still some other raid-related tournament mode not yet announced.

Unhurtable
07-09-2013, 01:04 PM
1) I agree RL should be defined. Would make this thread go away :-) Oh wait... It does, it can be used for all multi-player non-tournament events.
2) Tournament != Competitive.
3) Where did Cryptozoic state that RL can not be used for competitive PvE? There is only one exception for RL and that is tournaments. Well... That and solo content, but that was more of a clarification on Cryptozoic's part.

We do not have a clear definition of what "tournament PvE" is at the moment. Could it be competitive PvE? Yes. Does that mean it is? No. They could easily brand "undefeated raids" as being in "tournament mode". There is essentially nothing stopping them.


Who turned world firsts into a tournament?

Achievements are a competition amongst players to get them before another does or to get them at all. This does not mean they are a tournament.

Anytime a person goes to a tournament event they should not be expecting to use the RL buff. However, arbitrarily stating something is a tournament does not make it a tournament.

What is the definition of a tournament that we are using here?

Xenavire
07-09-2013, 01:12 PM
@Xenavire:
You're right about everything except the first sentence. The RNG, while intruducing a large degree of luck, is fair; it works the same for everyone. Now, we could argue about how much variance a game should or should not have, but the main point is that everyone has the same variance (as long as RL isn't turned on).

Yeah, not denying that, but it is plausible to imagine a situation where RNG knocks several teams out on their first attempt, who were widely accepted to be the best, and some random team could waltz in and play a perfect game, even though they were not even in the top 100 teams - it is highly unlikely, but it could happen. Now, it raises the question - would people try to contest it? The competetive aspect can be pretty ruthless sometimes, and lord knows people hate RNG based effects in competition.

Just speculating here, for fun mostly, but it is an interesting thing to consider (for me at least.)

Vibraxus
07-09-2013, 01:15 PM
Saying that RL does not apply to PVE/PVE Wild West tournaments is obvious to the point that it's also obvious that that's not what the RL description refers to. RL only works in raids (obvious). Wild West is not a raid (again obvious). Therefore RL does not work in Wild West. The "non-tournament" clause is not needed for that obvious logic. If we assume CZE put the "non-tournament" clause there to actually mean something and not just to waste space, then we must conclude that there is still some other raid-related tournament mode not yet announced.

You mean like the Guild "raid" system we know next to nothing about? Seems to me like that would be (or should be) deemed a tournament, and this the RL bonus would be null and void.....

Jbizzi
07-09-2013, 01:16 PM
Yeah, not denying that, but it is plausible to imagine a situation where RNG knocks several teams out on their first attempt, who were widely accepted to be the best, and some random team could waltz in and play a perfect game, even though they were not even in the top 100 teams - it is highly unlikely, but it could happen. Now, it raises the question - would people try to contest it? The competetive aspect can be pretty ruthless sometimes, and lord knows people hate RNG based effects in competition.

Just speculating here, for fun mostly, but it is an interesting thing to consider (for me at least.)

RNG, or luck as we old-timers used to call it, is involved in everything competitive.

ShadowTycho
07-09-2013, 01:19 PM
@yoss:
here is paragon doing the live raid in 2010
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgz7sXcNpgY

Evil-Lite
07-09-2013, 01:28 PM
Saying that RL does not apply to PVE/PVE Wild West tournaments is obvious to the point that it's also obvious that that's not what the RL description refers to. RL only works in raids (obvious). Wild West is not a raid (again obvious). Therefore RL does not work in Wild West. The "non-tournament" clause is not needed for that obvious logic. If we assume CZE put the "non-tournament" clause there to actually mean something and not just to waste space, then we must conclude that there is still some other raid-related tournament mode not yet announced.

People are trying to get competitive = tournament to reduce the usefulness of RL. Is it so hard to believe that a RL would try to argue so the RL buff becomes useable in the Wild West tournament format (or any other tournament) to gain from it?

Cryptozoic has prevented that from happening by including the verbiage "non-tournament PvE." Is it a tournament? Yes, then you can not use the RL buff.

Being competitive != a tournament.



No one did. I clearly labelled it as speculation AND invited anyone to offer a more plausible extrapolation. To quote myself:

As to clearly labeling it as speculation… I did not get the last paragraph when I used the “Reply with Quote.” Nor do I see the last paragraph when I went to double check the post I quoted from. I am not sure I would call it “Clearly labeled” when the post you added to your quote was over 2 hours after the initial one was posted.

Yoss
07-09-2013, 01:28 PM
@yoss:
here is paragon doing the live raid in 2010
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgz7sXcNpgY
Oh, yeah, they did that several times, but that's not a tournament/competition, it's just a fun expo thing that they earned by winning competitions in-game. Premonition (that's where Meldryn's said he played) was up in 2009 doing basically the same thing.

Yoss
07-09-2013, 01:31 PM
I am not sure I would call it “Clearly labeled” when the post you added to your quote was over 2 hours after the initial one was posted.
Five minutes, not two hours, but yes I was editing. And if you're talking about the quote, that was already there for two hours (in its original location as a non-quote regular post) so why didn't you read it?

You didn't answer the question: can you offer a more likely definition of "tournament PVE" that RL could but will not apply to?

Gwaer
07-09-2013, 01:53 PM
I have speculation on what a pve tournament looks like. Either a special raid or dungeon that is available for limited time, that has limited valid cards/mercs/champs for most points, fastest time, secret areas. It should have leaderboards, and then when the time is up it goes away, or opens up to allow all champs/mercs/cards. Then it just becomes a normal raid/dungeon. Or returns to being a normal raid/dungeon.

Frank1397
07-09-2013, 01:57 PM
RL. tier was made for people to find easy raiding companions.
The benefit of this that they get some free buffs.

Those benefits can also be made with mercs,equipment,your hero's abilities,cards and maybe crafting.

When the pp tier sold out Cory said he finded it strange that nobody had intrest in the RL and DC tiers.
Those where the tiers they thought the most off.
That made me think why would they say that. Until i found the first dungeon design.Eureka.
If you look at this game most part of this game is going to be MMO. Most of the cards in the game are PVE.
PVE bosses can give RARE/Uncommen card, raids give RARE/Legendary cards.

DC and RL are buffs YOU GET FOR LIFE. You dont have to created them with money sinks or or items,merc .,...

People who are going to play PVE/Coll/Deck builders are the people i think are going to spend the most of money in this game.
Every dungeons needs a new approach and this means equipment cards and maybe mercs.

Do you math every 3 months, 3 new dungeons. 1 to 3 raids pro dungeons. 3 to 8 bosses pro dungeons.Every dungeon has new cards for its dungeon.
How many cards are there going to be for each dungeon... How many are Rare,Legendary,items and crathing materials.

Yoss
07-09-2013, 02:08 PM
I have speculation on what a pve tournament looks like. Either a special raid or dungeon that is available for limited time, that has limited valid cards/mercs/champs for most points, fastest time, secret areas. It should have leaderboards, and then when the time is up it goes away, or opens up to allow all champs/mercs/cards. Then it just becomes a normal raid/dungeon. Or returns to being a normal raid/dungeon.
Thank you for being constructive. Now there's actually something on the table to talk about.

They could do what you've outlined here, but why would they? If they spend the time to build a raid/dungeon, then shouldn't they have it available for all time so that everyone can experience? I mean, it's not like building a good dungeon+raid is quick or easy. They will represent lots of dev time to build and lots of play time to beat. I would expect limited-time things to just be like temporary buffs of older dungeons/raids that have fallen out of favor as more content comes online. And yes, those limited time AI buffs could be tournaments, but if that is the entire extent of their plan for competitive MMO they're missing out on what Hex could be.

@Frank:
You're spot on for most of what you said there. I have a couple tweaks.

RL benefits can also be made with mercs,equipment,your hero's abilities,cards and maybe crafting.
We don't know this. Also, in most cases what you're proposing would stack with RL and thus not address the issue.

The rest of your post is good. Yes, the RL (in my mind) will work sorta like DC for raiding: it will help you farm. It should not help you win competitions, except in the way that DC does: time efficiency.

Xenavire
07-09-2013, 02:10 PM
RNG, or luck as we old-timers used to call it, is involved in everything competitive.

Yes, but it is the amount of luck that has me wondering about this. I mean take professional sport - most of the time, the only luck there is the coin flip before the game. Sure, sometimes luck jumps in and slaps you around a bit, but the game is based on being more skillful. A card game is a little different.

That is why tournaments in TCG's can be competetive - no-one can reliably luck through every round to the championship. But in a PvE environment, it could be possible - still highly improbable, nearly impossible, but still - I feel it would be interesting to witness.

Gwaer
07-09-2013, 02:11 PM
They've already said they are going to be rotating dungeons out of the game. So they're going to be doing it already.

The tournaments could happen periodically for each dungeon, at the beginning or end of their lifecycle, etc. Also, making a limited time challenge by further restricting your options for rankings doesn't really take a lot of dev time. It's actually the simplest popular tournament structure, all of the work has already been done in the normal raid creation process.

Unhurtable
07-09-2013, 02:13 PM
Yes, but it is the amount of luck that has me wondering about this. I mean take professional sport - most of the time, the only luck there is the coin flip before the game. Sure, sometimes luck jumps in and slaps you around a bit, but the game is based on being more skillful. A card game is a little different.

That is why tournaments in TCG's can be competetive - no-one can reliably luck through every round to the championship. But in a PvE environment, it could be possible - still highly improbable, nearly impossible, but still - I feel it would be interesting to witness.

You are also assuming that the coin flip before the game gives one player a definite advantage. Whether or not an advantage is perceived is another thing, but the coin flip could be used just to decide the start of the game impartially.

Vorpal
07-09-2013, 02:14 PM
I also think this whole concern over RL tainting world firsts is fundamentally flawed when compared to WOW.

It's not going to take 40 people weeks on end to kill raid bosses in HEX. It just isn't. There isn't the need to block out a 3 -6 hour time when 40 people can be online and fight their way tediously through mountains of trash in order to beat on a boss with millions of HP.

Aren't the raids 3 people? And don't the games take like 10 minutes?

Do you realize how quickly most WOW bosses would have died if 3 people could do it in 10 minutes?

I would guess the vast majority of newly released raid bosses are going to be dead a dozen times over before you even get back from work.

Shadowelf
07-09-2013, 02:17 PM
I have speculation on what a pve tournament looks like. Either a special raid or dungeon that is available for limited time, that has limited valid cards/mercs/champs for most points, fastest time, secret areas. It should have leaderboards, and then when the time is up it goes away, or opens up to allow all champs/mercs/cards. Then it just becomes a normal raid/dungeon. Or returns to being a normal raid/dungeon.

How about a ladder system diablo style, that u are awarded points by completing certain feats or achievements within a dungeon ? And the ladder can reset periodically, along with whatever dungeon it might be rotating

Yoss
07-09-2013, 02:22 PM
They've already said they are going to be rotating dungeons out of the game. So they're going to be doing it already.
Ah, that's news to me. Good to know. (Though I don't understand why they'd want to rotate content out once they've designed it. Anyone know why? I mean, PVE isn't going to have a block rotation, or so someone else around here said. Aren't those two statements at odds? Can we get some sources here? Also, doesn't it suck to be a new player if they're constantly removing content? Shouldn't an MMO world be constantly growing, not just changing?)


The tournaments could happen periodically for each dungeon, at the beginning or end of their lifecycle, etc. Also, making a limited time challenge by further restricting your options for rankings doesn't really take a lot of dev time. It's actually the simplest popular tournament structure, all of the work has already been done in the normal raid creation process.
Yes, and the most obvious time to start the tournament is on release day so that no one has seen it before ("beginning of lifecycle" like you said).


It's not going to take 40 people weeks on end to kill raid bosses in HEX. It just isn't. There isn't the need to block out a 3 -6 hour time when 40 people can be online and fight their way tediously through mountains of trash in order to beat on a boss with millions of HP.
Agreed.


Aren't the raids 3 people?
Yes.

And don't the games take like 10 minutes?
No. I'm not sure we have any idea how long, but the example raid boss had 100 HP, could regen, and only took 1 damage per hit no matter how hard you hit him. So, it actually might take weeks to figure out the right deck combos to do it, or it might be quite easy. They've said it will be hard, but that's not much to go on.

Unhurtable
07-09-2013, 02:25 PM
I also think this whole concern over RL tainting world firsts is fundamentally flawed when compared to WOW.

It's not going to take 40 people weeks on end to kill raid bosses in HEX. It just isn't. There isn't the need to block out a 3 -6 hour time when 40 people can be online and fight their way tediously through mountains of trash in order to beat on a boss with millions of HP.

Aren't the raids 3 people? And don't the games take like 10 minutes?

Do you realize how quickly most WOW bosses would have died if 3 people could do it in 10 minutes?

I would guess the vast majority of newly released raid bosses are going to be dead a dozen times over before you even get back from work.

Diablo 3 had a very competitive PvE scene when it was released, and that was a 4 player max game (where the world first in hardcore was done by a 2-man squad).

You are also assuming that the raid bosses in Hex will be as easy as the raid bosses in WoW. To be fair they could be easier, in which case a competitive PvE scene might not "form well" (as its no longer perceived as a competition since its too easy).

Gwaer
07-09-2013, 02:26 PM
Raids have phases you hate to defeat different aspects of it, I'm guessing the average time will be more like 2-3 hours.

The reason pve stuff rotates out is multifold, the top two (I would think) are;
1) Stops the flow of older pve cards, thus creating value in them
2) It goes back to that video I linked in that other thread, imperfect balance, if you have different driving forces defining what is "the best deck" or "top tier deck" then there will be a natural rotation as the dungeons change.

Yoss
07-09-2013, 02:30 PM
The reason pve stuff rotates out is multifold, the top two (I would think) are;
1) Stops the flow of older pve cards, thus creating value in them
2) It goes back to that video I linked in that other thread, imperfect balance, if you have different driving forces defining what is "the best deck" or "top tier deck" then there will be a natural rotation as the dungeons change.
1. I suppose I could see that, though it's very un-MMO-ish to me. I more expect an MMO to be ever-increasing in content and always being able to go back to old areas just for kicks.

2. The thing that drives imperfect balance is not things going out of print (because they'll still be legal to play), it is the new content coming in that upsets the old balance. Therefore, going out of print is not necessary for imperfect balance.

Gwaer
07-09-2013, 02:33 PM
...You do realize that there might be locks based on your champion level on dungeons, but there aren't actually higher level places... A deck is a deck. This is one of the places that the mmorpg definition you're working from breaks down.

Also, the thing that drives imperfect balance is finding trumps to what other people are doing, so that no one does them anymore, then someone finds a trump for the thing that trumped the first thing.

In this case there is not other people doing things, there are available dungeons/raids.

ShadowTycho
07-09-2013, 02:34 PM
You are also assuming that the raid bosses in Hex will be as easy as the raid bosses in WoW. To be fair they could be easier, in which case a competitive PvE scene might not "form well" (as its no longer perceived as a competition since its too easy).

this is kind of my secret fear.
What i would like to see available in hex that they didn't do in wow is a official pve ladder. or like a tower of power, where you have to beat bosses consecutively without changing decks and get to keep your score on your account at the end.(or maybe a sleeve that updates with the highest tier you've achieved.)

Xenavire
07-09-2013, 02:39 PM
...You do realize that there might be locks based on your champion level on dungeons, but there aren't actually higher level places... A deck is a deck. This is one of the places that the mmorpg definition you're working from breaks down.

Also, the thing that drives imperfect balance is finding trumps to what other people are doing, so that no one does them anymore, then someone finds a trump for the thing that trumped the first thing.

In this case there is not other people doing things, there are available dungeons/raids.

Well, level scaling could be done artifically through difficulty curve (requiring a higher level champion effect to better handle a certain piece of content.) I am not saying that 'requirement' couldn't be circumvented entirely by good decks and players, but it would be incentive to level your champion as opposed to relying on mercs etc.

So maybe X dungeon is significantly easier than Y dungeon, but Y dungeon is easier when your champion is around Z level - it wouldn't be required, but advised.

Level locks in a TCG seems a little painful though.

Gwaer
07-09-2013, 02:41 PM
That's possible, but it would be very hard to tune all of the different champion options to make X raid through their myriad effects easier.

Alternatively I guess each dungeon may be easier or harder based on what champion you are. I honestly just think that thinking about it in the context of a dungeon or raid in an mmorpg is just not good.

Vorpal
07-09-2013, 02:49 PM
I would think there is an upper limit on how long pve encounters can take just based on your deck size.

though the multiple aspects instead of one long encounter where you play 100 cards over 3 hours rather reduces the force of that argument.

Gwaer
07-09-2013, 02:52 PM
You also have to factor in the fact there are 2 other players involved in raids. With 2 other decks.

Yoss
07-09-2013, 02:56 PM
...You do realize that there might be locks based on your champion level on dungeons, but there aren't actually higher level places... A deck is a deck. This is one of the places that the mmorpg definition you're working from breaks down.
You're right in that the hero growth curve is much flattened because a big piece of your power comes from your deck, which has no level. However, there is still growth to your champion that could equate to a rather large difference from 1st to 50th level.


Also, the thing that drives imperfect balance is finding trumps to what other people are doing, so that no one does them anymore, then someone finds a trump for the thing that trumped the first thing.

In this case there is not other people doing things, there are available dungeons/raids.
Oh, another thing I thought of last night. The concept of imperfect balance from that video can only apply to PVP, not to playing against AI. The video was about an iterative metagame. There is no metagame (of that kind) in PVE.

Gwaer
07-09-2013, 02:58 PM
Oh, another thing I thought of last night. The concept of imperfect balance from that video can only apply to PVP, not to playing against AI. There is no metagame (of that kind) in PVE.
The metagame is based on the dungeon you're trying to overcome...

For example if there is a tournament based on a certain raid, the deck that can get the most points will be different from one raid to the next.

The best pve decks are going to be the decks that work consistently against the most types/most important dungeons, if those are changing then the metagame is changing, thus imperfect balance argument.

Yoss
07-09-2013, 03:14 PM
The metagame is based on the dungeon you're trying to overcome...

For example if there is a tournament based on a certain raid, the deck that can get the most points will be different from one raid to the next.

The best pve decks are going to be the decks that work consistently against the most types/most important dungeons, if those are changing then the metagame is changing, thus imperfect balance argument.
Hmm. I suppose so. It's meta versus the developers then, not other players like the video was saying.

ShadowTycho
07-09-2013, 03:28 PM
Hmm. I suppose so. It's meta versus the developers then, not other players like the video was saying.

and this is what makes pve fun. the developers are such a more powerful opponent.

Kietay
07-09-2013, 05:17 PM
and this is what makes pve fun. the developers are such a more powerful opponent.

The developers of any game are always the best players of that game and are never overcome by the playerbase. PvE is way harder than PvP and takes a lot more effort to become proficient at, this is evident by how few players are good at PvE and how many are good at PvP.

:confused:

Nevermind I was thinking of reverso world, not real life.

ShadowTycho
07-09-2013, 07:15 PM
The developers of any game are always the best players of that game and are never overcome by the playerbase. PvE is way harder than PvP and takes a lot more effort to become proficient at, this is evident by how few players are good at PvE and how many are good at PvP.

:confused:

Nevermind I was thinking of reverso world, not real life.
its not because they are the best players per say(i would say rarely but i cant think of a case where they are) but the fact that in a environment like this they don't have to play the game you are playing.

pvp is playing against a skilled opponent on a fair playing field.
pve (if done right) is playing against a computer opponent in a unfair playing field, designed to hurt you.

PVE can take a lot of effort to be proficient at, and if the challenges are hard enough can be downright punishing.(try 'i wanna be the guy the game')

cory and company seem really creative. I bet they will dream up some truly wicked raid bosses.

Gorgol
07-09-2013, 07:31 PM
Raids have phases you hate to defeat different aspects of it, I'm guessing the average time will be more like 2-3 hours.

The reason pve stuff rotates out is multifold, the top two (I would think) are;
1) Stops the flow of older pve cards, thus creating value in them
2) It goes back to that video I linked in that other thread, imperfect balance, if you have different driving forces defining what is "the best deck" or "top tier deck" then there will be a natural rotation as the dungeons change.

What the hell? May I inquire where they said they would rotate out pve? If they keep all pvp boosters available they damn well better keep all dungeons and raids available. If I take a long break down the line I don't want a reduced PVE experience. I want to be able to know I didn't miss any dungeons and raids.

Kietay
07-09-2013, 11:34 PM
they could rotate out PvE cards but they definitely would not rotate out the dungeons themselves. MMOs already fall far behind in content creation compared to content consumption. They would be insane to ever remove content.

Gwaer
07-09-2013, 11:41 PM
They said it wherever they were talking about an evolving story line. Dungeons will be removed. Some will be special for holidays. Still others will change semi regularly so that they have different cards available.

If you leave for an extended period of time the setting will change without you and you will miss out on stuff.

Keitay, generally I ignore you because you're a bad troll and not even fun to feed. This time I will point out that most mmo's have the problem of early content dungeons being ghost towns with no one in them, and then point out that this is as much of a straw man as your statement. Because hex isn't an mmorpg there will be much less time required to create content like this, they're talking about launching with 40 dungeons in less than 6 months. And they have exactly 0 even ready to demo. That's an insane turn around time.

AstaSyneri
07-10-2013, 01:58 AM
Can we agree that we really don't know how they will do it, because they themselves don't know yet? Yes, some dungeons are supposed to be "closed", but as far as I know, that will only be temporary.

Just a measure to mix up things a bit.

Xenavire
07-10-2013, 04:53 AM
They said it wherever they were talking about an evolving story line. Dungeons will be removed. Some will be special for holidays. Still others will change semi regularly so that they have different cards available.

If you leave for an extended period of time the setting will change without you and you will miss out on stuff.

Keitay, generally I ignore you because you're a bad troll and not even fun to feed. This time I will point out that most mmo's have the problem of early content dungeons being ghost towns with no one in them, and then point out that this is as much of a straw man as your statement. Because hex isn't an mmorpg there will be much less time required to create content like this, they're talking about launching with 40 dungeons in less than 6 months. And they have exactly 0 even ready to demo. That's an insane turn around time.

For the sake of argument though, every time they would remove a dungeon, the cards, equipment, and mercenaries attached to that dungeon would become unobtainable. Now while it is true that low level dungeons tend to have less traffic, the fact is that any one of those cards or equipment might be sought after long after people have 'levelled' past it, and while a merc might be a one time deal (you can only recruit it once) there may be hard to find mercs, and once they are removed it would be impossible to create decks using them if you come into the game late, or were unlucky enough to miss them somehow.

Now, if it would cost them almost nothing to keep them open, you would have more content (with higher replay value than anything a typical MMO has, as most dungeons are worthless once you progress past them.)

You would also have a larger card pool available to newer players, and that could keep them interested long enough to try PvP.

I can see the reasons why removing them as story progresses seems like a good idea, but look at the caverns of time in WoW. Almost every dungeon ever introduced to WoW is either still in the original location and working fine, or is in the caverns of time. I think there are a few exceptions, mostly when the content was reworked to make it more current.

So I just wonder what the merit of completely removing dungeons would be if the loot went with it. (If the loot was available via another dungeon, that wouldn't be as much of an issue.)

Hatts
07-10-2013, 07:47 AM
So I just wonder what the merit of completely removing dungeons would be if the loot went with it. (If the loot was available via another dungeon, that wouldn't be as much of an issue.)

There are a few reasons already stated or implied by CZE:

1) They have a story they want to tell with the PvE campaign, it will evolve over time and include world changing events. To give an example (from my own head, not CZE) imagine if the Vennen overtake the Feralroot Woods that contains the Genesis Pool. Does it make sense to have the Wild Heist 'dungeon' (http://hextcg.com/dungeon-delving/) anymore? They want it to feel like a living world, those aren't static.
2) Removing the loot that comes with the dungeon caps the supply of those cards, giving them more value on the auction house. Creating scarcity of PvE cards is beneficial to the health of the PvE market.
3) As time goes on there will be thousands of cards obtainable in game, removing old dungeons helps them manage this number a bit. They will still be available on the AH.

Also keep in mind that dungeon is a catch all term for a series of PvE encounters. Many of them are not dungeons in the traditional MMORPG sense of the word. As factions and characters (mercs, quest givers etc) move about the world it doesn't make sense to expect them to give the same quests / rewards as they did at the start of the game.

Vibraxus
07-10-2013, 08:45 AM
There are a few reasons already stated or implied by CZE:

1) They have a story they want to tell with the PvE campaign, it will evolve over time and include world changing events. To give an example (from my own head, not CZE) imagine if the Vennen overtake the Feralroot Woods that contains the Genesis Pool. Does it make sense to have the Wild Heist 'dungeon' (http://hextcg.com/dungeon-delving/) anymore? They want it to feel like a living world, those aren't static.
2) Removing the loot that comes with the dungeon caps the supply of those cards, giving them more value on the auction house. Creating scarcity of PvE cards is beneficial to the health of the PvE market.
3) As time goes on there will be thousands of cards obtainable in game, removing old dungeons helps them manage this number a bit. They will still be available on the AH.

Also keep in mind that dungeon is a catch all term for a series of PvE encounters. Many of them are not dungeons in the traditional MMORPG sense of the word. As factions and characters (mercs, quest givers etc) move about the world it doesn't make sense to expect them to give the same quests / rewards as they did at the start of the game.

Uh oh, now youve done it. You just merged the 2 largest threads in here with your supply and demand talk. Im scared......

Xenavire
07-10-2013, 09:55 AM
There are a few reasons already stated or implied by CZE:

1) They have a story they want to tell with the PvE campaign, it will evolve over time and include world changing events. To give an example (from my own head, not CZE) imagine if the Vennen overtake the Feralroot Woods that contains the Genesis Pool. Does it make sense to have the Wild Heist 'dungeon' (http://hextcg.com/dungeon-delving/) anymore? They want it to feel like a living world, those aren't static.
2) Removing the loot that comes with the dungeon caps the supply of those cards, giving them more value on the auction house. Creating scarcity of PvE cards is beneficial to the health of the PvE market.
3) As time goes on there will be thousands of cards obtainable in game, removing old dungeons helps them manage this number a bit. They will still be available on the AH.

Also keep in mind that dungeon is a catch all term for a series of PvE encounters. Many of them are not dungeons in the traditional MMORPG sense of the word. As factions and characters (mercs, quest givers etc) move about the world it doesn't make sense to expect them to give the same quests / rewards as they did at the start of the game.

Ignoring supply and demand for now (I refuse to even consider that to be valid in PvE talk, as RNG drop rates and crafting will give things rarity and scarcity), let us talk about the effect on story - a new player comes in to a story without a beginning, how is anything going to make any sense?

WoW had an acceptable story for an MMO, and the dungeons did tie into it - until I played through most of the caverns of time content, I had many unanswered questions.

So my point was that the location could change and develop, but the removed content could be placed into a kind of time capsule for future players to experience.

Diesbudt
07-10-2013, 09:57 AM
Uh oh, now youve done it. You just merged the 2 largest threads in here with your supply and demand talk. Im scared......

I feel a disturbance in the Hexorce.

Gwaer
07-10-2013, 10:00 AM
They'd just have to update their introductory dungeons to get people into the current story arch.

Supply and demand in PVE is incredibly important. If the cards are not suitably enjoyable to use/powerful and rare enough no one will pay play for even the best PVE cards. Which will be awful, a dedicated PVE player should be able to make money off exceptionally rare unobtainable cards that will allow them to break into the PVP paid side of the game. Possibly never paying anything, possibly turning into a paying member of the community from a f2p one.

Xenavire
07-10-2013, 10:20 AM
Gwaer, I don't follow. What does rarity in the dungeons have to do with the quality of the cards? They can be any rarity and decent. And the supply and demand would be no different than an MMO like WoW - the rare drops in even the easiest dungeons can be worth a fair amount, and high level players can easily farm them. Being a TCG, it is not guaranteed to get easier as you progress (you won't be able to ever 'one shot' a boss) but players will get used to the content. So it will still be a large investment of time, unlike in a traditional MMO - this would actually serve to boost the value of the cards.

Your whole post seems to be based on some idea and I am not clear on what that idea is, or why it makes sense.

Thunderbringer
07-10-2013, 10:30 AM
a new player comes in to a story without a beginning, how is anything going to make any sense?

If you want to start playing MtG will you start playing from first edition? No you will hop in at the current edition and get the cards available. Similar to this you are a new player after a couple of years hex is running. You hop in and take whats available. This is no MMORPG like WoW so that you got top gear and stuff. Yes you will be with less cards than others but rotation of the cards as well as new "keywords" new tactics wont make it difficult for you to play.
In conclusion if you are a new player you hop in, read the story so far, get the cards at hand and enjoy :-)

Xenavire
07-10-2013, 10:42 AM
If you want to start playing MtG will you start playing from first edition? No you will hop in at the current edition and get the cards available. Similar to this you are a new player after a couple of years hex is running. You hop in and take whats available. This is no MMORPG like WoW so that you got top gear and stuff. Yes you will be with less cards than others but rotation of the cards as well as new "keywords" new tactics wont make it difficult for you to play.
In conclusion if you are a new player you hop in, read the story so far, get the cards at hand and enjoy :-)

I think you missed something here - the reason for the discussion is that CZE has expressed an intent to remove dungeons periodically to help drive the storyline - they importance of that is new players may miss something vital to the story, not the game experiences.

Dungeons are expected to have rewards, and if they have some rare enough, the PvE economy will not suffer from it.

So there is no harm in making a time capsule of dungeons.

Thunderbringer
07-10-2013, 10:44 AM
I am not missing anything read my last line :-)
I am with CZE on that one noone will lose nothing, CZE can make a good portion of their website into the game's story, like MtG releases novels.

Xenavire
07-10-2013, 10:51 AM
I am not missing anything read my last line :-)
I am with CZE on that one noone will lose nothing, CZE can make a good portion of their website into the game's story, like MtG releases novels.

Well, can I just ask you something quickly? Do free to play players tend to pay attention to anything except the game? Do they even pay attention to opening sequences and quest descriptions?

I might be the only one, but 9/10 players I meet in a F2P game tend to bot know anything about the story unless they have cleared a bunch of content (like dungeons.)

Gwaer
07-10-2013, 10:51 AM
Gwaer, I don't follow. What does rarity in the dungeons have to do with the quality of the cards? They can be any rarity and decent. And the supply and demand would be no different than an MMO like WoW - the rare drops in even the easiest dungeons can be worth a fair amount, and high level players can easily farm them. Being a TCG, it is not guaranteed to get easier as you progress (you won't be able to ever 'one shot' a boss) but players will get used to the content. So it will still be a large investment of time, unlike in a traditional MMO - this would actually serve to boost the value of the cards.

Your whole post seems to be based on some idea and I am not clear on what that idea is, or why it makes sense.

The idea behind my post is that unless a card is obscenely powerful people will only buy it with gold if it can be gotten in a pve dungeon. As soon as a dungeon rotates out and all of those cards are limited editions and they can't be obtained through gameplay anymore, people will be much more willing to pay plat for them. Even if it's only a few plat vs 100000 gold, that's enough to pay someones tournament entry fees. Hopefully if the card is good enough and rare enough and unobtainable in a dungeon someone could trade for a decent cheap to make constructed pvp deck, thus letting a f2p PVE person graduate to PVP, if they for some reason had no money to put into the game.


Well, can I just ask you something quickly? Do free to play players tend to pay attention to anything except the game? Do they even pay attention to opening sequences and quest descriptions?

I might be the only one, but 9/10 players I meet in a F2P game tend to bot know anything about the story unless they have cleared a bunch of content (like dungeons.)

This is entirely player specific, I have to know about the lore of any game I play or it is just less engaging and I drop it quickly. They seem to be taking a lore heavy route in hex. I mean they have already showed an example of reading the lore blurb on a card in the middle of a dungeon telling you how to most favorably win the encounter. If their intro dungeons are anywhere near as engaging and interesting and lore driven they'll just have to change with time like the rest of the game.

Hatts
07-10-2013, 10:53 AM
@Xenavire Seriously? Do you need to read the Hobbit before the Lord of the Rings? Or the Simalarion before the Hobbit? All stories start at a point in time, you don't need to know everything that occurred beforehand to understand them. New players will still have a starting point, even if it isn't the same starting point as a player who started 2 years before them. History and lore can be revealed as you progress through the game. No one starts a story with all the information about the world, it would be a very boring story if so.

@Vibraxis LOL, I almost didn't include that at all, I knew it could cause the hexpocalypse.

Thunderbringer
07-10-2013, 10:54 AM
Well if they dont like stories they shouldnt read them. They should get a deck and play whats available.
But you got me confused. First you say "a new player comes in to a story without a beginning, how is anything going to make any sense?" I reply to you that they should read the story line from Hex official site and then you tell me that most f2p players arent interested in the story??

Hmmm?

Xenavire
07-10-2013, 11:15 AM
Ok, about the story side of this debate, the argument seems based on people not caring when they start playing. So let me run with the Hobbit/LotR example here. If someone chose to read LotR first, does this mean they should never be allowed to read the Hobbit? Should they get a cliffnotes version?

And to further that line of thinking, once someone has read the hobbit, should they never be able to re-read it once LotR is on the shelves?

One step further - should the stop ever printing, selling and re-selling the hobbit because the LotR books kind of half explains the events in the hobbit? Should they go burn all copies of the hobbit?

Or maybe they should just remove chapters, would that work? Lets skip the Smaug chapter, no-one needs to see how Bilbo pissed him off and made him go attack people.

That is very similar to what is being suggested here. Being a video game it has some loopholes it could use, but if there is no reason to remove the content, when you could relocate it... Why bother using the loopholes?


Gwaer, you arent wrong about PvP players buying into PvE (and giving PvE players a way into PvP) but if you need to play PvE to earn gold, you may as well just farm for the cards you want, or spend platinum/sell PvP cards.for gold. They don't need collectors items to do that, and if they would have common cards and very rare cards, you would have a fair amount of balance.

Gwaer
07-10-2013, 11:34 AM
This isn't a book, it's a game, it's an evolving story. There will be books written about the setting that may tell the stories that you missed in a very good way if you're that interested. But that's no reason to stop them from rotating out dungeons.

Hatts
07-10-2013, 11:49 AM
[some silly suggestions about modifying the hobbit to set up a straw man]

That is very similar to what is being suggested here. Being a video game it has some loopholes it could use, but if there is no reason to remove the content, when you could relocate it... Why bother using the loopholes?

No that's not what is being done here because you aren't reading a story, you are playing a video game which takes place in a fictional world that is moving forward in time. The history of the world is told through your interaction with the game. It breaks the story to have everything available or it means that you can't do any world changing events. Anything new has to happen in a previously undiscovered area of the world.

When a new user arrives at the Arena for the first time do they have a dial to select which year they want to play in? How does this make any sense in the story?

Vibraxus
07-10-2013, 11:57 AM
I think you missed something here - the reason for the discussion is that CZE has expressed an intent to remove dungeons periodically to help drive the storyline - they importance of that is new players may miss something vital to the story, not the game experiences.

Dungeons are expected to have rewards, and if they have some rare enough, the PvE economy will not suffer from it.

So there is no harm in making a time capsule of dungeons.

Im pretty sure the term was "rotate" meaning here today, here for a few months...then gone...but back again in a few months....I know I saw that somewhere...the times may be off, but the sentiment should be how I read it.

Xenavire
07-10-2013, 12:09 PM
Im pretty sure the term was "rotate" meaning here today, here for a few months...then gone...but back again in a few months....I know I saw that somewhere...the times may be off, but the sentiment should be how I read it.

I think the term 'rotate' was used in the same sense as PvP blocks rotating out - once they are gone they are legacy. With a dungeon, the only way they could be legacy is if they kept the content playable, but removing any sort of rankings that might apply. But the implication was to completely remove them to make way for new content.

And so what if it is not a book? We have a good example of an MMO that keep's dungeons around, and the story in general was untouched (until cataclysm, at which point they started updating all old content to make it more appealing.) But the flow and zones did not change much, and the overall story was kept intact, so you could progress from one to the next, just like reading a book.

So I would like to ask for some examples where dungeons are regularly removed - I am sure it has to have been done, but I would like to see the impact it had.

Gwaer
07-10-2013, 12:21 PM
We have examples of mmorpg's doing it, sure. The mmo tcg won't have you wandering around exploring, you're going to have hubs, those hubs are very easy to change, most of the reason wow didn't update sooner is because of the vast amount of effort it is to do, that will not be the case here.

Xenavire
07-10-2013, 12:40 PM
We have examples of mmorpg's doing it, sure. The mmo tcg won't have you wandering around exploring, you're going to have hubs, those hubs are very easy to change, most of the reason wow didn't update sooner is because of the vast amount of effort it is to do, that will not be the case here.

Well, if all it requires is reduced effort, then they should be ready to release PvE content every 4 months along side PvP sets, correct? And if dungeons rotate at the same time as sets, they would need to keep the number of dungeons at a certain amount - each time with multiple carefully balanced decks, new maps, and whatever unique mechanics to make it different and make it stand apart from the other bosses/dungeons.

And considering they have said there will be as much as 40 dungeons in game (I am unsure if they are slated for launch or not, but Cory did state they were up to 40 after the stretch goal.) If 40 is the base, and they add half that each new set, and 40 at the start of each block, the dev time would have to be insignificant for each dungeon.

Now, if we get new content that often, I might not have any complaints about content being removed as long as CZE keeps tabs on the story and let players keep involved in the narrative. But I feel like the dev time will not be so insignificant, and there might be merit in keeping dungeons around.

So maybe this is a topic we could discuss more in depth if we had more information from CZE? I think having access to cards and story is important, and don't see a need to remove old content, but if PvE cards get 'reprinted' the same way as PvP cards, etc, I could live with it.

But if we end up talking about infinite print again, look at the rare mounts in WoW - raid mounts are constantly sought after, and so are legendary weapons, even in long outdated content. For example, the Ashes of Alar - highly sought after even years after it was introduced. And they showed the value that can bring by creating the black market auction house - people pay insane amounts of gold for that same mount, because it is rare. And it is still infinite, after all this time.

That said, no card would have to be that rare for it to be valuable, but it could be an option.

Shadowelf
07-10-2013, 12:50 PM
Well with dungeons rotating, story will be rotating too. So what is past for you, it wil be present for the new players. So i don't see why they will be annoyed if they miss smthing they didn't know it was there at the first place. In addition ,Cze may have characters in game that recite the storyline for ppl that are interested in such a thing, quest givers may hint players for the past, and whatever rewards from those dungeons will available at the AH.

Dungeon rotation may also work wonders in the value of pve items, and could bridge pve with pvp, as pvp players that missed pve content may be willing to pay in plat; plat that may be used by pve players to draft or buy boosters essentially for free. Many pvp players may see this as a chance to get their hands on limited pve content/stuff, thus bringing more players into pve, that wouldn't otherwise tried it out.

Finally rotating dungeons may give older players the incentives they need to retry low lvl areas and give new life to low lvl content and especially raiding, that requires more than one person.

Gwaer
07-10-2013, 01:00 PM
What is it with you and setting up straw men, and artificial constraints. There's no need for PVE to be chained to PVP set releases. Hell. It could be real time, things that happen in a year happen. There may be dungeons that come into as out of the game repeatedly. A dwarf incursion to the surface that ardent repel for example, perhaps only lasts a month, goes away for 6 months and comes back with different bosses for the dwarves second attempt.

Or a dungeon is take over by vennen and all the encounters fundamentally change while just reskinning the hub with spider webs and such.

Theres no requirement for tons of dungeons to go out all at once. It can be very gradual.

Xenavire
07-10-2013, 01:12 PM
What is it with you and setting up straw men, and artificial constraints. There's no need for PVE to be chained to PVP set releases. Hell. It could be real time, things that happen in a year happen. There may be dungeons that come into as out of the game repeatedly. A dwarf incursion to the surface that ardent repel for example, perhaps only lasts a month, goes away for 6 months and comes back with different bosses for the dwarves second attempt.

Or a dungeon is take over by vennen and all the encounters fundamentally change while just reskinning the hub with spider webs and such.

Theres no requirement for tons of dungeons to go out all at once. It can be very gradual.

It was an example, a hypothetical - I was using it to demonstrate the required numbers of dungeons if it mirrored PvP. In my example, it would take approx 3 days per dungeon for a block release, and approx 6 days per dungeon for each other set.

I doubt it would follow that kind of system, and I could live with real time events (within reason, a week long event might be too restrictive depending on the content, but a year long would be more than enough.) However, having a way to explore the removed story would be nice (people have mentioned this is a game, so the idea of playing through it seems to appeal more than reading it from an archive.)

I still doubt there would be a burning need to remove dungeons only to remove cards however - I expect PvE to be healthier than PvP when it comes to the balance of commons versus rares. I think the barrier for entry would be very low for PvE, while the collectors would always have something to shoot for (and people could easily make money off it). Removing the cards would just be restrictive for no real reason - the benefit would just be increasing the prices of already expensive cards. Seems like it would benefit a few people, but wouldn't be needed.

Gwaer
07-10-2013, 01:23 PM
The benefit is increasing worth of all discontinued cards. Not just the most expensive.

Yoss
07-10-2013, 01:24 PM
It breaks the story to have everything available or it means that you can't do any world changing events. Anything new has to happen in a previously undiscovered area of the world.
Solution already suggested: move the old content into a "time vault" that is not part of the current world but is still accessible for play.

I still haven't heard anyone give a good reason why not to do a "time vault" for retired content. I've seen reasons for evolving content and so on, but no reason to avoid an "archive" area.

Gwaer
07-10-2013, 01:27 PM
As long as you get no rewards for doing them in an archive, sure. Other than I bet very few peor do it. And it's not worth the dev time.

Yoss
07-10-2013, 01:27 PM
The benefit is increasing worth of all discontinued cards. Not just the most expensive.
Dungeon deletion (as opposed to retirement to a playable time vault) should not be necessary. The supply of a particular dungeon's rewards will automatically decrease as the dungeon falls out of favor with the players for whatever reason. If supply dips far enough, then players will have renewed incentive to go back to the old content. This seems like a good thing.

Yoss
07-10-2013, 01:29 PM
archive ... not worth the dev time.
Really? It would take hardly any time at all. It would just be a single hub. Heck, it could just be a blank screen with a drop-down list. It's an archive, so it doesn't need to be fancy.

If you go look at the Stakeholder Analysis thread, you'll see there's a group called Completionists. If you don't archive stuff that rotates out you'll be angering that group, so you'd better have a darn good reason for doing so.

Shadowelf
07-10-2013, 01:31 PM
As long as you get no rewards for doing them in an archive, sure. Other than I bet very few peor do it. And it's not worth the dev time.

Then what will be the reaon of doing it without rewards? For the storyline ? Meh 5 lines of story and one npc will do this better

Gwaer
07-10-2013, 01:32 PM
You could be right about no dev time. I was accounting for making it look good. But you could probably whip something up quite quickly. My statement was that it wasn't worth the devtime in people making use of it if you couldn't get rewards from it. Which you're talking about still getting cards and equipment from retired dungeons right? I'm against that quite vehemently. When things are retired the access to stuff from those things should go away.

Gwaer
07-10-2013, 01:34 PM
Then what will be the reaon of doing it without rewards? For the storyline ? Meh 5 lines of story and one npc will do this better
That's exactly my point. This argument boils down to people waiting infinite access to things that shouldn't have infinite access. It's not about story. It's not about experiencing the past. It's about a way to get cards

Yoss
07-10-2013, 01:39 PM
you couldn't get rewards from it. Which you're talking about still getting cards and equipment from retired dungeons right? I'm against that quite vehemently. When things are retired the access to stuff from those things should go away.
Do you have any further reasoning that I haven't already answered?


The benefit is increasing worth of all discontinued cards. Not just the most expensive.

Dungeon deletion (as opposed to retirement to a playable time vault) should not be necessary. The supply of a particular dungeon's rewards will automatically decrease as the dungeon falls out of favor with the players for whatever reason. If supply dips far enough, then players will have renewed incentive to go back to the old content. This seems like a good thing.

And it is about story and experiences, as well as the rewards. You do not seem to be a Completionist, but I assure you such people exist.

If making a particular player segment happy comes with minimal cost, why not do it?

Shadowelf
07-10-2013, 01:39 PM
That's exactly my point. This argument boils down to people waiting infinite access to things that shouldn't have infinite access. It's not about story. It's not about experiencing the past. It's about a way to get cards

Yeap and i agree, for the reasons i stated at my previous post #233

Yoss
07-10-2013, 01:43 PM
Well with dungeons rotating, story will be rotating too. So what is past for you, it wil be present for the new players. So i don't see why they will be annoyed if they miss smthing they didn't know it was there at the first place. In addition ,Cze may have characters in game that recite the storyline for ppl that are interested in such a thing, quest givers may hint players for the past, and whatever rewards from those dungeons will available at the AH.
I do not see how this is an argument against having a time vault.


Dungeon rotation may also work wonders in the value of pve items, and could bridge pve with pvp, as pvp players that missed pve content may be willing to pay in plat; plat that may be used by pve players to draft or buy boosters essentially for free. Many pvp players may see this as a chance to get their hands on limited pve content/stuff, thus bringing more players into pve, that wouldn't otherwise tried it out.

Dungeon deletion (as opposed to retirement to a playable time vault) should not be necessary [for item supply limitation]. The supply of a particular dungeon's rewards will automatically decrease as the dungeon falls out of favor with the players for whatever reason. If supply dips far enough, then players will have renewed incentive to go back to the old content. This seems like a good thing.


Finally rotating dungeons may give older players the incentives they need to retry low lvl areas and give new life to low lvl content and especially raiding, that requires more than one person.
The time vault idea also meets this desire.


EDIT:
By the way, do we need to take this to a new thread? We're a bit off topic.

Gwaer
07-10-2013, 01:50 PM
And it is about story and experiences, as well as the rewards. You do not seem to be a Completionist, but I assure you such people exist.

If making a particular player segment happy comes with minimal cost, why not do it?
I'd like to have everything, certainly, I own ever league of legends champion for example. But I am a reasonable completionist, if I wasn't present for something I don't expect to be able to get it anyway.

Luckily we don't have to worry about that, Cory already told completionists that you won't be able to get everything. That's a fact about the game already, so we don't need to worry about systems that enable people to get everything. Play what you can play, watch youtube or twitch videos of things you miss. Move on to the new stuff.

Yoss
07-10-2013, 02:00 PM
Cory already told completionists that you won't be able to get everything. That's a fact about the game already, so we don't need to worry about systems that enable people to get everything.
Quoting Cory might tell us something about how things are planned, but it can never tell us about how it should be planned. (And this particular quote doesn't help this particular argument anyway. I already said that the time vault is a super inexpensive add with virtually no downside.)

So, what's wrong with a time vault for retired content? Please either refute my previous posts directly or come up with new arguments that we've not seen yet.

Gwaer
07-10-2013, 02:02 PM
Nothing if it doesn't give that dungeons cards or equipment.

Yoss
07-10-2013, 02:06 PM
Nothing if it doesn't give that dungeons cards or equipment.
And why would giving the rewards be a problem? If you say something like "to limit supply", you've already used that argument and I've answered it. If you think my answer was inadequate, please quote it and tell me why it was not adequate. If you have some other reason, please state it now.