PDA

View Full Version : Please reconsider the "impossible to get every merc" concept.



CustomCombo
07-13-2013, 03:01 PM
It has apparently been mentioned that decisions made during the campaign will affect which mercenaries will be available to you. If this means that without a second account you will be unable to acquire every mercenary, I'm very much against this idea. Players should not have to make a second account to work around a mechanic just to experience the full game. Imagine if an MMORPG locked you out of content due to decisions made during play and required a second account to access it.

Secondly...as to exclusive mercs given away only during certain time periods. I'm going to keep this rather brief since many of the reasons I dislike this idea have been discussed in the various Gen-Con threads. I would just like to present the following scenario:

Let's start with a rather small estimate of just 5 exclusives released through promotional events each year. This doesn't seem unlikely given the sheer number that could be released for holidays alone. At even that low number, you could log in after 5 years and there could be dozens of exclusives that you will never have the chance to play with.

I don't know of any player who would enjoy seeing or hearing about a mercenary that would be incredibly fun to play only to discover that they missed out and will never have that opportunity; not if they're being honest with themselves. It's been mentioned time and again that lots of thought and effort has gone into making these mercs a wacky and fun experience. Why would you follow that up with telling us there will be some we will never get the chance to use? Please reconsider.

Gorgol
07-13-2013, 03:04 PM
Well, I didn't think it was possible, but I guess you were right Shadowelf. :(
On-topic: There are already unplayable mercs that people will never have a chance to get. Take a look at the Kickstarter rewards.

Icepick
07-13-2013, 03:09 PM
Imagine if an MMORPG locked you out of content due to decisions made during play and required a second account to access it.

MMOs do that all the time. They've always done stuff like that.
Whenever people hear that they won't be able to get every single merc they some how get it into their head that they are going to be missing some vital game play experience that ruins the entire game if you miss it. The reality is that there's a good chance you might complete all the PvE content without even using a Merc once. And besides, unless you backed a pretty high tier on the Kickstarter, you're already missing a bunch of mercs anyway.

CustomCombo
07-13-2013, 03:10 PM
Well, I didn't think it was possible, but I guess you were right Shadowelf. :(
On-topic: There are already unplayable mercs that people will never have a chance to get. Take a look at the Kickstarter rewards.

I think many people were hoping that was a special occasion, and not a precedent for a common future practice. Nobody likes being left out, especially through normal play.


Whenever people hear that they won't be able to get every single merc they some how get it into their head that they are going to be missing some vital game play experience that ruins the entire game if you miss it. The reality is that there's a good chance you might complete all the PvE content without even using a Merc once.

Please stop trivializing mercenaries because you don't think they will matter much in the grand scheme of things. The fact is that I DO consider the option to play with those mercs asa vital game play experience. This seems to be the most common response when I've brought it up, and just because others aren't looking forward to them as much as I am, that doesn't make my concern any less valid.

Shadowelf
07-13-2013, 03:11 PM
Well, I didn't think it was possible, but I guess you were right Shadowelf. :(
On-topic: There are already unplayable mercs that people will never have a chance to get. Take a look at the Kickstarter rewards.

Hehe hate to be a smart-ass but told ya ;)

On topic: Mercs won't be affecting the gameplay as much as you think and if they do they will be nerfed. Any game that you join late by 5 years will have a bunch of stuff that you will be missing. Learn to live with that, cause there is no other way.

Maphalux
07-13-2013, 03:13 PM
MMORPGs actually do lock players out of content all the time. Want to start as this race or class? Start in this city or on this continent. Join up with a specific faction then you get this storyline, join up with another one and get that storyline.

It is the same with seasonal stuff that may or may not come back around in the following years.

It is pretty standard fare.

CustomCombo
07-13-2013, 03:17 PM
In regards to all the statements that say "MMOs do this all the time" Most of the examples you are referring to don't require a second account. A second character, sure. But most games that originally locked character creation to a single faction eventually lifted that limitation. And seasonal stuff is almost always cosmetic, with the exclusive being functionally the same as another item obtainable at any point.

Quasari
07-13-2013, 03:31 PM
In regards to all the statements that say "MMOs do this all the time" Most of the examples you are referring to don't require a second account. A second character, sure. But most games that originally locked character creation to a single faction eventually lifted that limitation. And seasonal stuff is almost always cosmetic, with the exclusive being functionally the same as another item obtainable at any point.

A large amount of content from WoW has been removed/changed over time. The four emerald dragons, Azuregos , Kazzak/Kruul from vanilla as world bosses are gone. Ruins of AQ can no longer be ran with 20 people(10 man raid) meaning it's a completely different experience if you ran it with lvl 60s(much harder cuz the content is the same). Onyxia's lair was removed and readded with different tuning. Naxxramas was removed and difficulty was destroyed to make it an intro raid at 80. Zul'Aman and Zul'Gurub are gone and replaced with new tunings for higher levels. Countless quests have been redone for Cata and their old counterparts are long gone.

Overall if one were to buy vanilla wow and try to raid at their 60 cap they'd have a very different experience than I did back when I played it. There would be nothing after Ruins of AQ, both their 20 man raids would either not exist or be near impossible, they'd also be missing one of their intro 40 mans. They'd have no world bosses, it'd be much harder to get the NR for Huhuran. Honestly the games barely there. No one would do this, but if someone wanted to there'd be little reason anymore.

Heck, I still have Atiesh (http://www.wowhead.com/item=22631), which is no longer obtainable.

ossuary
07-13-2013, 03:37 PM
Um... seriously? HALF of all of World of Warcraft is cut off from you on each server you play on (or at least, it was back when I was playing - I don't know what the hell those guys are doing these days). You have to make multiple characters on multiple servers to have a chance to experience everything.

But that's not even the point. You've committed a major logical fallacy, which is that every single mercenary is a separate experience, and you will be missing out on a major swath of the game if you don't have one of them. That's simply not the case. They're specifically designing the game to have dozens, and eventually hundreds or even thousands, of mercenaries. They are fun little things to play around with, nothing more. They don't WANT you to have every single one of them, and the game is being designed with that in mind from the outset (therefore, NOT having one will not actually penalize you in any significant way).

firedancer27
07-13-2013, 03:39 PM
I don't know of any player who would enjoy seeing or hearing about a mercenary that would be incredibly fun to play only to discover that they missed out and will never have that opportunity; not if they're being honest with themselves. It's been mentioned time and again that lots of thought and effort has gone into making these mercs a wacky and fun experience. Why would you follow that up with telling us there will be some we will never get the chance to use? Please reconsider.

Count me as a player that would enjoy hearing about different experiences in the game. To me that is part of what makes a game fun...I don't need to have the exact same experience as someone else or be able to play the game in the exact same way. I am not saying my way of enjoying the game is the correct way. I can understand some people's need to have everything possible in a game but I have never felt that way.

CustomCombo
07-13-2013, 03:49 PM
@Quasari

Alright. I'll admit that content is removed all the time. But that's content that is removed for everybody. There will still be people playing with these mercenaries. The merc will always be there unless they are removed from every account. Items that become unfeasible(like your Atiesh) are not something I believe are relevant to this discussion. Unless there are plans to ramp up content to the point that some early mercenaries are practically useless, there isn't much of a correlation. However, even in that situation if you were to play with someone now and they saw you running around with that item and they thought it was really cool, do you think they would be happy to learn that they could never get it? Exclusive items released only during a specific time may be great for those that were able to acquire them, but if you were ever on the other side of that you can't tell me you wouldn't be a little saddened.

Rydavim
07-13-2013, 03:55 PM
There are a lot of points already made in this thread that are perfectly valid.

I like the idea that your decisions actually impact your campaign experience. If you could just do everything then decisions wouldn't matter. They'd be irrelevant 'cause you could just do it again differently and get everything. I understand that there are hardcore completionists out there, but to be honest, I expect those are also the kind of people willing to have multiple accounts to acquire absolutely everything.

Many MMOs have only impermanent decisions. You might make the choice to murder a particular NPC, and it might still crop up later in some other story arch alive and well. I hate that. If I make a major choice in my story line I want it to actually make a difference in my story line.

The way Cyrptozoic has been talking about some mercenaries makes it sound like the experience they want to give their users, and the way you want things to be are mutually exclusive. This isn't meant at all in a dismissive or condescending way, but if this is something that deeply matters to you, Hex might not be the right game to choose. Either way, I hope everyone finds a way to have fun.

Vomitlord
07-13-2013, 04:02 PM
It has apparently been mentioned that decisions made during the campaign will affect which mercenaries will be available to you. If this means that without a second account you will be unable to acquire every mercenary, I'm very much against this idea. Players should not have to make a second account to work around a mechanic just to experience the full game. Imagine if an MMORPG locked you out of content due to decisions made during play and required a second account to access it.

Secondly...as to exclusive mercs given away only during certain time periods. I'm going to keep this rather brief since many of the reasons I dislike this idea have been discussed in the various Gen-Con threads. I would just like to present the following scenario:

Let's start with a rather small estimate of just 5 exclusives released through promotional events each year. This doesn't seem unlikely given the sheer number that could be released for holidays alone. At even that low number, you could log in after 5 years and there could be dozens of exclusives that you will never have the chance to play with.

I don't know of any player who would enjoy seeing or hearing about a mercenary that would be incredibly fun to play only to discover that they missed out and will never have that opportunity; not if they're being honest with themselves. It's been mentioned time and again that lots of thought and effort has gone into making these mercs a wacky and fun experience. Why would you follow that up with telling us there will be some we will never get the chance to use? Please reconsider.

If missing out on some mercs during campaign is that big a deal maybe consider playing another game.

Also you know what exclusive means?

I have to believe that most people on the forums are backers. Boggles my mind that they have no problem with bebo etc being unavailable to 90% of players yet are up in arms over stuff like this.

I think Cory Jones is being extremely generous even giving us a chance of getting exclusive items for events we didn't even attend. I would even say it cheapens them.

Again I say this as someone who lives in England, is terrified of flying and will never go to gencom.

Hemlock
07-13-2013, 04:05 PM
As others have said, almost every MMO does event-exclusive/faction-exclusive stuff like this. That's not really an argument, though.

The argument is that different capabilities between players are the lifeblood of an MMO. That's why the class system is so successful; it creates variation among the playerbase that allows synergy, deepens the strategy, and provides the player with a (semi-)unique identity. If WoW only allowed people to be Warriors, or Mages, everyone would still be playing EverQuest. Obviously mercs aren't on the same level as classes, but it's the same kind of variation-based value for specific players.

Say there are two rare mercenaries, one exclusive to the Void Society and one to the Gargoyles, that have great synergy. Two friends could plan ahead and get the complementary mercs, and rock every raid side by side. Or, you could be known in your guild as that one guy who grabbed Gax during the GenCon event.

I wouldn't have it any other way.

Ginaz
07-13-2013, 04:07 PM
I'm ok with not having access to all the mercs if its a result of choices you have to make in the pve storyline. It kind of sucks for collectors, and I understand why they would want to be able to have them all, but if its the result of having to make meaningful choices wrt the story then its reasonable and logical.

Banquetto
07-13-2013, 04:07 PM
I have to believe that most people on the forums are backers. Boggles my mind that they have no problem with bebo etc being unavailable to 90% of players yet are up in arms over stuff like this.

Haha, yeah. The mental gymnastics (I guess a less polite person would call it "hypocrisy") involved in Kickstarter backers complaining that in the future they might miss out on some exclusive cards.. and piously declaring that everyone should have an equal opportunity to obtain everything.. sheesh.

But of course you DO have an equal opportunity to obtain Bebo or Glorfenblort or the Cardboard Tube Samurai - stop whining, just get into a time machine and go and back the Kickstarter!

CustomCombo
07-13-2013, 04:09 PM
@Rydavim

You sound like you want to have a single storyline that all your characters would be tied to, thus your decisions would be permanent. I personally can't say I've ever met someone that would prefer that over the option of experiencing the rest of the game, but that's up to you. Unless every new character on an account is going to continue from the previous character's progress...there's no reason we both can't have what we want. I would prefer an option to reset my decisions and start over with a new story(as most rpgs let you do with a new character) without having to create a new account to do so. If we ARE going to be locked out of content permanently or faction locked based on our first character, then you're right; I should probably find a different game to play. However, if this is the case, I would've liked to have been informed of their intention to deviate so strongly from the standard before I pledged through kickstarter.

EDIT: Just to clarify...I wasn't happy about he kickstarter exclusives. I was in fact quite frustrated I couldn't pledge more(due to a large purchase shortly before the kickstarter) just to ensure I would get them all. As I mentioned earlier, I had hoped it was a special occasion, and not a precedent for future practice.

ossuary
07-13-2013, 04:17 PM
As I mentioned earlier, I had hoped it was a special occasion, and not a precedent for future practice.

Then perhaps you're not super familiar with how TCGs work? Special event promos are a tradition, and one that is followed not just because it's traditional, but because it has been proven to help drive traffic and visibility. This is standard operating procedure at its most basic and effective level.

Hibbert
07-13-2013, 04:18 PM
@Quasari

Alright. I'll admit that content is removed all the time. But that's content that is removed for everybody. There will still be people playing with these mercenaries. The merc will always be there unless they are removed from every account. Items that become unfeasible(like your Atiesh) are not something I believe are relevant to this discussion. Unless there are plans to ramp up content to the point that some early mercenaries are practically useless, there isn't much of a correlation. However, even in that situation if you were to play with someone now and they saw you running around with that item and they thought it was really cool, do you think they would be happy to learn that they could never get it? Exclusive items released only during a specific time may be great for those that were able to acquire them, but if you were ever on the other side of that you can't tell me you wouldn't be a little saddened.

The WoW collector edition pets are a good example of exclusive content in an MMO. They used to be just cosmetic, but with the addition of the pet battle system, they are now gameplay altering. I haven't looked them up, but I'm sure at least some of the exclusive pets either have unique abilites, unique combination of abilities, or unique combination of abilities and stats.

Maybe there might be some combination of those pets that some one might really want to use to build a team. I think it'd be silly to get too hung up on it though. There are so many other pets around to use. The uniqueness of those pets doesn't really amount to "exclusive" gameplay.

Edit: Just to be clear, I'm comparing these pets to the mercs. The mercs might have unique abilties, but I doubt any of them will be so mindblowing that it practically(emphasis here, they do technically alter the game) alters the way you play the game. I would definitely say that's true of all exclusive mercs we've seen so far.

CustomCombo
07-13-2013, 04:24 PM
Then perhaps you're not super familiar with how TCGs work? Special event promos are a tradition, and one that is followed not just because it's traditional, but because it has been proven to help drive traffic and visibility. This is standard operating procedure at its most basic and effective level.

I am quite familiar with how TCGs work. I've played some variation of them for a long, long time. There is a big difference in special event promos and mercenaries. Special event promos are alternate art or reprints and they are tradeable. Mercenaries are unique and account bound.

Quasari
07-13-2013, 04:35 PM
@Quasari

Alright. I'll admit that content is removed all the time. But that's content that is removed for everybody. There will still be people playing with these mercenaries. The merc will always be there unless they are removed from every account. Items that become unfeasible(like your Atiesh) are not something I believe are relevant to this discussion. Unless there are plans to ramp up content to the point that some early mercenaries are practically useless, there isn't much of a correlation. However, even in that situation if you were to play with someone now and they saw you running around with that item and they thought it was really cool, do you think they would be happy to learn that they could never get it? Exclusive items released only during a specific time may be great for those that were able to acquire them, but if you were ever on the other side of that you can't tell me you wouldn't be a little saddened.

Naw no one cares about my atiesh, but Ive had people comment on my swift zulian tiger (http://www.wowhead.com/item=19902/swift-zulian-tiger). There also was the once per server aq quest that rewarded a unique mount. Basically the only things that really keep prestige in wow are cosmetic.

Gorgol
07-13-2013, 04:36 PM
Naw no one cares about my atiesh, but Ive had people comment on my swift zulian tiger (http://www.wowhead.com/item=19902/swift-zulian-tiger). There also was the once per server aq quest that rewarded a unique mount. Basically the only things that really keep prestige in wow are cosmetic.
I would ride around orgrimmar on my swift zulian tiger even when flying mounts came out. I'd always get 1 or 2 whispers asking where I got the mount. I loved that. I remember when I'd see people in Tier 3 Naxx gear in vanilla and be like "that is SO cool!" I never once was upset because they had something I very well likely never would.

ossuary
07-13-2013, 04:37 PM
People always confuse "I've played a lot" with "I understand how it WORKS." Another logical fallacy, I'm afraid.

CustomCombo
07-13-2013, 04:45 PM
I would be perfectly fine with cosmetic exclusives. Exclusives that are functionally the same as something attainable at any point(like the WoW mounts or skins in GW etc.) I have zero issue with. But when I'm told that a lot of effort has gone into a mercenary to make it fun and wacky, I don't like missing out on that.

I've already resigned myself to making a free account just to experience the other mercenaries available in the campaign since apparently nobody sees a problem in having to do that. But the only options available for the promotional mercs currently stand at attending the event or gambling one through chests. There's got to be a better way than that.

@ossuary
There is no logical fallacy in noting the differences between two clearly distinct circumstances. Your veiled attempts at a personal insult are noted, however, and I will no longer be responding to you from here on out.

Shadowelf
07-13-2013, 04:55 PM
I've already resigned myself to making a free account just to experience the other mercenaries available in the campaign since apparently nobody sees a problem in having to do that. But the only options available for the promotional mercs currently stand at attending the event or gambling one through chests. There's got to be a better way than that.

There are definately better ways. But we won this one. So at this point is either take it or leave it. I know how it sounds but i would prefer this solution any given day than attending events all over the globe. And that's the meaning of exclusives; that not everybody is going to have them, and this is what makes them special after all . At least you will have a fair shot on everything; personally i wouldn't ask for more than that

Atomzed
07-13-2013, 04:55 PM
Many good points against the OP has been brought up. I don't have anything else to add except a -1 to Custom points.

I'm not going to try to convince custom since he has such strong opinions; I'm just coming in to show CZE that I'm supportive of their decision.

iscariotrex
07-13-2013, 05:00 PM
There actually doesn't "got to be a better way than that." You need to learn to let go man. This is a game. Hopefully you participate in it for fun. If it is breaking your heart before it exists, you need another hobby.

I did have a fun idea though that you/others might enjoy or think about. Given years of time and their commitment to making lots of these things that are feasibly missed; maybe when they have hundreds of them they could do mercenary packs or re-release particularly popular ones. Maybe even have the community vote on things like which ones get released. Just a thought.

Thing is man, you never know what will happen. The Crypto team seems heartily dedicated to making fun happen. Let them do that and just bask in it. There is fun out there, quit killing it.

Shrennan
07-13-2013, 05:38 PM
There HAS to be exclusives that WILL be unobtainable by some or by many. A trading card game lives on its value and its value will not be much if everyone can simply obtain everything in the game - this includes mercs. Also, the story mercs in particular are there for the story so it wouldn't make sense to obtain the ones you sided against or chose not to help.

Also, as was said, MMOs constantly have things that are unobtainable by many. If you joined WoW right now, for instance, there would be equipment, mounts, mini-pets, etc. that are gonna be unobtainable for you because the time to obtain those items has long past due.

Gorgol
07-13-2013, 05:44 PM
Also, as was said, MMOs constantly have things that are unobtainable by many. If you joined WoW right now, for instance, there would be equipment, mounts, mini-pets, etc. that are gonna be unobtainable for you because the time to obtain those items has long past due.
The point of contention is those aren't game-changing whereas they see the mercenaries as definitely game-changing. They realize other games and MMOs have unobtainable content but none of that affect play in any way meaningful. I don't subscribe to this viewpoint, but I do see it as a valid one.

KiraForce
07-13-2013, 05:53 PM
MMOs do that all the time. They've always done stuff like that.
Whenever people hear that they won't be able to get every single merc they some how get it into their head that they are going to be missing some vital game play experience that ruins the entire game if you miss it. The reality is that there's a good chance you might complete all the PvE content without even using a Merc once. And besides, unless you backed a pretty high tier on the Kickstarter, you're already missing a bunch of mercs anyway.

Most notable example is the skill trees that differentiate between classes.

Shrennan
07-13-2013, 06:04 PM
The point of contention is those aren't game-changing whereas they see the mercenaries as definitely game-changing. They realize other games and MMOs have unobtainable content but none of that affect play in any way meaningful. I don't subscribe to this viewpoint, but I do see it as a valid one.

But how are mercs game-changing? Correct me if I'm wrong, but mercs are strictly PVE, right? PVE doesn't really have to revolve around balance and there are plenty of MMOs that still offer exclusives with its PVP and PVE that can be game-changing in certain respects - and yes, even WoW does this. I mean, WoW really doesn't care about its PVP balance with twinks (I actually hate the concept of twinks because of balance issues but that's a debate that's not relevant to Hex).

Cory has also stated that mercs are the one thing that can be changed directly as opposed to cards (which would be banned).

Also, if this was already mentioned then please forgive me, but can't story mercs obtained in dungeons be acquired on multiple playthroughs of those dungeons? Or does the previous merc get erased when you side with another merc on a second playthrough?

KiraForce
07-13-2013, 06:09 PM
Cory has also stated that mercs are the one thing that can be changed directly as opposed to cards (which would be banned).

Sorry for getting a bit off topic, but that reminded me of a question I definitely should have asked for the live interview... Will there be Casual PvP, where you can disregard the ban list so that you and your friends can play broken combos to your heart's content? Also PvE PvP (PvP with friends using PvE rules) would be nice to try also.

Shrennan
07-13-2013, 06:11 PM
Sorry for getting a bit off topic, but that reminded me of a question I definitely should have asked for the live interview... Will there be Casual PvP, where you can disregard the ban list so that you and your friends can play broken combos to your heart's content? Also PvE PvP (PvP with friends using PvE rules) would be nice to try also.

There will actually be an "anything goes" format with mercs, all cards (including PVE), etc.

Also, custom matches with your friends that includes whatever you want are also very likely (I haven't seen this directly confirmed but it's pretty much implied with the "anything goes" format being officially available).

ramseytheory
07-13-2013, 06:55 PM
The point of contention is those aren't game-changing whereas they see the mercenaries as definitely game-changing. They realize other games and MMOs have unobtainable content but none of that affect play in any way meaningful. I don't subscribe to this viewpoint, but I do see it as a valid one.

We got confirmation in Friday's update that mercenaries aren't meant to be dominating, and that they'll be changed if they start to damage the game. So I'm entirely happy to consider mercenaries as a fun extra or possibly a way to shore up a champion's weakness rather than an important part of the competitive PVE game.

lucedes
07-13-2013, 07:05 PM
I think that making it impossible to get every merc on one account is the best possible thing, because it leads to different players having different experiences.

Also, mercs aren't actually going to be relevant in top-tier PvP, or probably even in raiding, compared to the lv50 champions, because they shouldn't be. Mercs are for casual fun decks and trying out new wacky things. Explicitly.

ossuary
07-13-2013, 07:46 PM
@ossuary
There is no logical fallacy in noting the differences between two clearly distinct circumstances. Your veiled attempts at a personal insult are noted, however, and I will no longer be responding to you from here on out.

Just to be clear, I wasn't insulting you. I was pointing out an error in your logic. If I wanted to insult you, I'd be quite clear about it, by calling you a smeghead or something similar (yayy, Red Dwarf). I know you probably have no way of knowing this, but I'm sure plenty of people here can tell you that I'm not exactly coy with my opinions. If I dislike you, or want to insult you, I won't imply it... you'll know. :)

My fallacy comment was not directed to your statement that alternate art and in-game features were different. That doesn't require comment, because it's obvious and true. My comment was specifically and clearly directed at your comment that not being able to have all the mercenaries was "missing out." I was merely demonstrating, as I laid out later in the paragraph, that if the game were designed from the ground up based on the understanding that it was impossible to have all of the mercenaries, no one mercenary will be vital to the experience. Therefore, by definition, you cannot be "missing out." You are not intended to have both experiences in the either / or scenario Cory laid out when he was talking about campaign path / faction mercenary choices.

Feel free to not respond as you said you wouldn't, it doesn't matter to me either way. But I just wanted to clear the air on the whole insult thing. I intended no offense, and if I came across as condescending, then I apologize.

mainstager
07-13-2013, 08:13 PM
I disagree. Do not reconsider.

CustomCombo
07-13-2013, 08:22 PM
@ossuary

If you truly meant no offense, then it is I who should apologize. I read far more aggression in your post then was there. I'd like to say it was the result of all the angry replies I was getting, but truth be told it was just as much my fault for allowing them to rile me up.

The mercs are a very big deal to me. They are functionally similar to vanguards in MTGO, and I had originally planned to collect them all much as I do there. They have provided me with countless hours of play that is substantially different than I would have had if I had not made an effort to get them. Every one I have missed or has become too expensive to acquire is a huge point of frustration for me. With Hex, even an expensive option will not exist. While this may not be a big deal for most, I know that each time it happens will trigger stress for me that will that originate mostly from that sense of frustration.

I believed that if I voiced my opinion, there would be others who share this concern. That was clearly not the case. I try to be as polite and forthright in my online communications as the subject will allow. However, in my short time here I have managed to anger what is apparently a large portion of the vocal community. For that, I apologize. I will likely return to lurking. First impressions are important, and mine was not well received.

ossuary
07-13-2013, 08:24 PM
I think it's a fundamental difference of opinion as to what a mercenary SHOULD be, based on what your past history has led you to believe it would be.

The reality is that each mercenary will be a fun, themed little thing you can build a couple of decks around, but that won't be overly powerful or game changing. And there will probably end up being HUNDREDS of them, so that you couldn't possibly build enough decks in a year to even notice that you were missing one.

Typhon
07-13-2013, 08:34 PM
I don't think it'll be a big deal; it's just an understandable reaction when you mix a common MMO feature (ie. In WoW, Horde players can't get Alliance mounts; so you don't bother counting them if you're a mount collector), and the "gotta catch them all" aspect of collecting physical CCG/TCG cards.

Even outside of the fact that there will probably be faction-specific mercenaries; there are still various PVE "choices" that will probably put you down a path where it will block out of mercs down other paths. So yes, because of game design limitations, it will be impossible to collect all the Mercs in a single character ... but maybe they'll allow for multiple characters per account? :)

From a gameplay standpoint, I'm sure there will be some mercs that have the same abilities, just different names (especially faction ones).

I'm not worried about it ... although I can totally see how this would drive hard core collectors a little crazy.

Diesbudt
07-13-2013, 10:36 PM
I am also in the camp to please keep exclusive mercs in the campaign choices. I like it when my choices affect what happens, and/or what cards I can obtain in the PvE scene.

Rydavim
07-13-2013, 11:05 PM
You sound like you want to have a single storyline that all your characters would be tied to, thus your decisions would be permanent. I personally can't say I've ever met someone that would prefer that over the option of experiencing the rest of the game, but that's up to you.

Sorry, maybe what I meant wasn't as clear as a thought. I am talking about a single character's storyline. In some MMOs you can have character (X) and NPC (Y) - (X) kills (Y) at one point, but then in another quest (Y) might return alive and well for no apparent reason.

Basically, I want my character(s)'s choices to matter, and meaningfully effect, that particular storyline. My desire absolutely does not preclude having the ability to make different choices on different characters. In fact, I hugely support this. Maybe I'll want to play one champion in a Chaotic Evil way and another as Lawful Good. Different characters (which I assume you'll be able to have) should not have tied story lines.

Hopefully that clarifies things. I want meaningful choices to be permanent and consistent within the same character's campaign progression. :)

Patrigan
07-14-2013, 12:25 AM
Basically, I want my character(s)'s choices to matter, and meaningfully effect, that particular storyline. My desire absolutely does not preclude having the ability to make different choices on different characters. In fact, I hugely support this. Maybe I'll want to play one champion in a Chaotic Evil way and another as Lawful Good. Different characters (which I assume you'll be able to have) should not have tied story lines.

To be clear, this will NOT be possible. Campaign choices have been made clear to be account bound. If you choose between void society and The Ashen at one point, this choice will be bound to your account. This is, because, you know, nobody can have every mercenary.

I see a lot of people talking about fun. Why would any company lock their players out of fun? The only reason would be outdated content, as was shown with WoW. For the record, Blizzard has already stated Cataclysm to be a mistake, partially because it destroyed the access to many fun encounters.

Next point, Mercenaries are a functional. It doesnt' matter if they have a huge impact or not, they remain functional. More importantly, they are fun little sidesteps that have no direct impact on the game. So why would you be locked out of it? I have yet to see a good reason for this, including from CZE.

Here are some reasons given:
-Exclusivity increases the value. Currently this value is mostly time limited, thanks to the booster inserts.
-Exclusivity allows players to show off: How can we show off our mercenary? It's PvE content, not like you can use it in PvP and show it off to other players...
-Exclusivity has been done before: There are a few cases where a functional exclusive has been given. Please look up "Nalathni Dragon" and check what the result of it was: http://wiki.mtgsalvation.com/article/Promotional_cards#Dragon_Con Ergo, functional exclusives are BAD.
-It's just PvE: PvE matters to some more than to others. These arguments are the worst. However, I will wait until after release, when 90% will play PvE and only 10% will play PvP. We'll see the backlash then.
-It's just for fun: Doesn't explain why it should be exclusive.
-These mercenaries will now earn CZE money: See my proposition below.

I think I just opposed most of the reasons given in this thread. Will they change it because I can show this? Likely not now. I am fairly certain that in 2 years time, though, the mercenaries will be available through other means as well. PvE players in WoW are know to create HUGE backlashes, even against cosmetic items, Blizzard has often caved in to them. Why would CZE respond differently to what will become the majority of their playerbase?

Exclusivity on mercenaries is simply a big fuck you to completionists. They can no longer say "I levelled all mercenaries to level 20". As of yet, I still have to hear a real pro that only exclusive mercenaries offer, that can't be offered by other things like exclusive AAs. The arguments like "suck it up, or quit the game", which honestly is rather very rude (and being a dick warrants a ban from the forums). There are some well-constructed counter arguments, but I think I countered all of them earlier, feel free to prove me wrong.

Don't get me wrong, the current proposed solution truely is a step in the right direction. But it's just that, a step. I am willing to take it for now, as I expect a bigger backlash in the future, when the majority plays PvE.

However, I am not one to argue without an actual solution. I give you: The Tavern!
The Tavern is a location in the PvE campaign, requiring a level 50 champion. It's a drinking place run by a Dwarf (clichés are good) named Bob. When you enter the Tavern, you see a big crowd, all weird and strange characters hanging around. When you approach Bob the tavernkeeper, he asks if you're interested in a drink, or if you would like to hire an extra hand? He warns you though, that many of these hired hands are not quite normal, he thinks some of them even come from other dimensions! Next up you get a list of a list of mercenaries that have already been released in exclusive approaches and maybe some others to make the tavern more than just a way to get exclusives into the game. For a good amount of Gold (gold sink) or some platinum (to still earn CZE money), you can hire these. Bob the tavernkeeper reminds you to come back later, because when a new mercenary has been running around for 6 months, he'll probably come here looking for more work.

Functionally, this would mean mercenaries are time limited exclusives. After 6 months (long enough, I think), you can simply buy a mercenary. There are obvious arguments against this, but it's a middle ground that should work for most of the players. If you think not, feel free to create a proper argument.

Gorgol
07-14-2013, 12:36 AM
All I want is whatever gets the most people in the game and spending cash so that my PVP side of the game will be supported for years and years to come.

Blurr
07-14-2013, 01:26 AM
They say they want mercenaries to be about "fun", but they also want to make mercenaries exclusive. It seems to me that I would want to put the "fun" stuff in the hands of the most people possible. Maybe not being able to get it is part of the fun?

Rydavim
07-14-2013, 11:14 AM
To be clear, this will NOT be possible. Campaign choices have been made clear to be account bound. If you choose between void society and The Ashen at one point, this choice will be bound to your account. This is, because, you know, nobody can have every mercenary.

Ah, yes, you are right. I guess I was thinking less globally, as in a particular encounter or PvE match. I guess I assumed some mercenaries would be tied to encounter decisions. I may be under informed, or there may not be enough information about this. I agree that global choices should effect the account globally. If mercenaries only come from global-type decisions, I suppose I support that as well. Basically, I enjoy games where important decisions are, you know, actually important. For myself, I consider that to be fun. But I can certainly understand if other people don't.

As Cory said, you can't make everyone happy. It's impossible. But hopefully everyone can find enough things about Hex that they enjoy that it won't be hard to compromise on the things you don't. I think in the end if you supported the game envisioned on the Kickstarter, you'll have fun either way in the end. :)

Gwaer
07-14-2013, 11:38 AM
There has been talk of Mercs from dungeons. In that case going back and making different decisions in the dungeon could get you a different merc, and you would have both.

Spot on in the case of faction decisions though. I'm not sure how I feel about it. I'm taking a wait and see approach.

Lafoote
07-14-2013, 03:58 PM
I'm a RABID collector. Back in the day, I got a mana crypt, an Arena, and that craptastic Nalathni Dragon. I have played my share(and probably your share too) of MMOs. Factionary unlocks and lockouts ARE a universal standard. Further I am at peace with having the opportunity to acquire promo mercs on a limited basis. It's more than they had to give us. Further, I appreciate the concession they made on our behalf. While no argument may convince you to change your opinion, I hope you can at least recognize their decision is reasonable.

Shadowelf
07-14-2013, 04:20 PM
There has been talk of Mercs from dungeons. In that case going back and making different decisions in the dungeon could get you a different merc, and you would have both.

Spot on in the case of faction decisions though. I'm not sure how I feel about it. I'm taking a wait and see approach.


Hmm maybe you will have to side with a particular faction before attempting that dungeon and the decision will be irreversible ? So if a dungeon awards 2 mercs, you will only be able to choose one depending on the faction you have chosen? It does make sense :/

Gwaer
07-14-2013, 04:23 PM
I really doubt they will lock out very many dungeons behind a faction, but it's certainly possible to have specific story lines inside of one based on your faction/how high your faction even is within that faction.

Shrennan
07-14-2013, 05:17 PM
To be clear, this will NOT be possible. Campaign choices have been made clear to be account bound. If you choose between void society and The Ashen at one point, this choice will be bound to your account. This is, because, you know, nobody can have every mercenary.

I actually don't really understand why the faction choice is bound to your account rather than your champion since multiple champions are able to be created. Granted, I think only certain champions should have access to certain mercenaries and, as a result, certain champions would never be able to have certain mercenaries based on story decisions. With that said, I wouldn't mind knowing CZE's decision to make those choices account bound rather than character/champion bound so if anyone in CZE would like to enlighten us then feel welcome to! :D

Regardless, I'm in the camp that's not against exclusive mercenaries, so I'm going to give my argument to certain points of your post:


I see a lot of people talking about fun. Why would any company lock their players out of fun? The only reason would be outdated content, as was shown with WoW. For the record, Blizzard has already stated Cataclysm to be a mistake, partially because it destroyed the access to many fun encounters.

First of all, players are going to be locked out of "fun" from the start given the Kickstarter exclusive mercenaries. There is no way, no matter how much backlash there is, CZE will make those mercenaries available. Cory and the team have been very clear that the Kickstarter rewards will only ever be available to the backers with the caveat that a backer could trade a KS exclusive card to a non-backer.

Anyway, I think people are really making mercenaries more important than they actually are. There are games that make certain items unavailable or very exclusive to the point of basically being unavailable - Guild Wars 2 has done it and WoW has done it (the Swift Spectral Tiger mount may as well be unobtainable and eventually it might).


Next point, Mercenaries are a functional. It doesnt' matter if they have a huge impact or not, they remain functional. More importantly, they are fun little sidesteps that have no direct impact on the game. So why would you be locked out of it? I have yet to see a good reason for this, including from CZE.

AAs also have no direct impact on the game so why make those exclusive?

As for your counters to the points you listed:


-Exclusivity increases the value. Currently this value is mostly time limited, thanks to the booster inserts.

I also think there may be an assumption that people who open lots of packs will be guaranteed to get an exclusive event PVE card, mercenary, AA or whatever. Let's not forget that Cory created the WoW TCG and that includes the Spectral Tiger card that unlocks the mount - the statistics of getting that particular mount are 1 in 500, I believe. I wouldn't be surprised if the same type of rarity was given for exclusive event items so I don't see the value as "mostly limited" until we know the actual chance of acquiring those items within a treasure chest.


-Exclusivity allows players to show off: How can we show off our mercenary? It's PvE content, not like you can use it in PvP and show it off to other players...

You actually can show off in a couple ways. Firstly, there's the "anything goes" format, which is planned to include actual tournaments and rankings. In that format you can use mercenaries to fight against real people. There's also the player becoming a raid boss to challenge other players - mercenaries will be used in those. Lastly, there's the raids in which players can offer unique mercenaries to help themselves and their team beat the raid bosses.


-Exclusivity has been done before: There are a few cases where a functional exclusive has been given. Please look up "Nalathni Dragon" and check what the result of it was: http://wiki.mtgsalvation.com/article/Promotional_cards#Dragon_Con Ergo, functional exclusives are BAD.

Is that the only functional exclusive, though? That may be one case that resulted in a bad example. However, with that example you have things like the Black Lotus. To me, and as someone who will likely never acquire a Black Lotus, it makes that card legendary within Magic. It adds that extra special something that I love about Magic.


-It's just PvE: PvE matters to some more than to others. These arguments are the worst. However, I will wait until after release, when 90% will play PvE and only 10% will play PvP. We'll see the backlash then.

I'm sure we'll see backlash, but Cory has already recognized that you cannot please everyone and he is absolutely right. There will be exclusives in both PVP and PVE and mercenaries will literally have no real negative impact to other players. Even the "everything goes" format tournaments will not have huge prizes. It's just for fun and it's meant to be unbalanced fun.


-It's just for fun: Doesn't explain why it should be exclusive.

It explains why it doesn't matter if it's exclusive. I would be against exclusive PVP cards because they matter in rankings and prizes and tournaments that will matter to competitive players. This is why the only exclusive PVP cards are alternate PVP art cards. Mercenaries, however, will not negatively impact any player - hence the "just for fun" argument.


-These mercenaries will now earn CZE money: See my proposition below.

Every company tries to make money - that's a given. However, I think if Crypto was thinking about only money then they would be more likely to monetize many things that they have chosen not to. The only thing real currency will buy you is booster packs and entry fees to tournaments. That is something that most companies would not stop at. Monetizing mercenaries with the ability to gain exclusive mercenaries that players would be originally proud of would create a huge backlash from those players who had those mercenaries - especially those who have the KS exclusive mercenaries.


I think I just opposed most of the reasons given in this thread. Will they change it because I can show this? Likely not now. I am fairly certain that in 2 years time, though, the mercenaries will be available through other means as well. PvE players in WoW are know to create HUGE backlashes, even against cosmetic items, Blizzard has often caved in to them. Why would CZE respond differently to what will become the majority of their playerbase?

You gave your arguments as to why you opposed other arguments arguing in favor of something that you are against but you did make the arguments that you countered against invalid. Everything will be subjective and a lot of it is speculative so to suggest that right now is just wrong. You keep mentioning Blizzard so I'll also mention this: Blizzard is responsible to shareholders - Cryptozoic is not. At most, Cryptozoic is responsible to stakeholders but stakeholders hold a lot less control over a company (in general) than shareholders. In fact, Cryptozoic has complete power over Hex. They can do with it what they want and I fully believe they will not go against their word regarding exclusive mercenaries - like the KS exclusive mercenaries. They have shown that they are willing to compromise in certain instances, like the booster pack treasure chest events - which is an amazing compromise that pleases both parties.


They can no longer say "I levelled all mercenaries to level 20".

I don't think this would be possible even if all mercenaries would be available. There are probably going to be hundreds and hundreds of mercenaries and certain mercenaries just won't fit people's playstyles. Again, until we know the amount of mercenaries available in the game a lot of that talk is speculative.

Fateanomaly
07-14-2013, 08:01 PM
Maybe they just want people to create multiple accounts to boost their accounts numbers.

Kietay
07-15-2013, 12:49 AM
Maybe they want us to eat crackers while we play.

AmineHsu
07-15-2013, 08:09 AM
While I don't object to Cory's plan as presented, I am getting a little annoyed at this rhetoric of "Oh, it's just a fun thing to play around with so it doesn't matter. Looking at this article (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr220b) talking about different types of TCG players, there are both types of Timmies and Johnnies that are likely to favor 'fun things to play around with' over... 'boring efficient things'? Whatever you want to call things not in the 'fun things to play around with' category.

The conversation on the boards seems to be largely dominated by Spikes, even in the Merc discussion 'Competitive PVE' seemed to be the dominating oppositional argument. I really hope that the Devs are considering other view points than just what is being put forth here because I don't think the final user base is going to be nearly as Spike dominated as these boards are now.

Just as a personal opinion, as someone who paid into the kickstarter at above the King level, I do feel rather bad for the Johnnies who come along several years/months down the the road because they will never be able to pull off any combos/themed decks that are dependent upon the kickstarter mercs (and/or any other exclusive mercs that come out between now and when they join)

Vorpal
07-15-2013, 08:27 AM
I am in favor of people experiencing different gameplay based on which choices they make.

If everyone has all the same mercs, that's boring as crap.

If you have the goblin merc because you sided with the goblins but your friend has the centaur merc because he sided with them, that is interesting!

Making those choices IS the game. The fact you chose between A and B does not mean you are not experiencing the full game. they want you to feel the weight of that decision.

Besides, mercs are fun little side shows and not in any way shape or form game breaking.

Vorpal
07-15-2013, 08:29 AM
you could log in after 5 years and there could be dozens of exclusives that you will never have the chance to play with.

That's how exclusives work?

I am continually surprised at the vocal subset of the playerbase who are against exclusives in any form.

Zaelesis
07-15-2013, 08:46 AM
I actually don't really understand why the faction choice is bound to your account rather than your champion since multiple champions are able to be created. Granted, I think only certain champions should have access to certain mercenaries and, as a result, certain champions would never be able to have certain mercenaries based on story decisions. With that said, I wouldn't mind knowing CZE's decision to make those choices account bound rather than character/champion bound so if anyone in CZE would like to enlighten us then feel welcome to! :D

Going to try and address this: The way Cory explained that the pve aspect would make your account like your keep/castle. My understanding of this then means that champs and mercs work for your keep and dont actually do anything themselves, so story/faction choices would be tied back to your keep and not the champ/merc. So no matter what champ you were using when you made X choice, that choice would be linked to your keep(account) indefinitely.

Now I agree it would probably be a good idea to allow for multiple keeps to be on 1 account, just for those people that want to do everything related to pve. However they would have to put in certain blocks within the system to stop people from exploiting some of the systems within the game. The multiple keeps on 1 account would prevent excessive account build up due to people wanting to experience everything and having to create multiple accounts to do so.

residualshade
07-15-2013, 09:44 AM
I am fine with getting all the mercs being impossible or near impossible. if you think about the number they plan on pumping out this is a reasonable statement.

what i am not fine with is it being impossible to get a particular merc that strikes my fancy.

this entire situation would be resolved if mercs where tradeable. has CZE stated why they are making mercs untradable?

Turtlewing
07-15-2013, 10:28 AM
MMORPGs actually do lock players out of content all the time. Want to start as this race or class? Start in this city or on this continent. Join up with a specific faction then you get this storyline, join up with another one and get that storyline.

It is the same with seasonal stuff that may or may not come back around in the following years.

It is pretty standard fare.

Most MMOs lock content like that at the character level.

This character starts in City X, and gained +20000 faction with the cabal of book burners which means they have -20000 faction with the Librarian's guild.

An account however can have multiple characters (sometimes for a fee). So on one account I can have a book burner character and a librarian character, thus experiencing both "paths" without creating a new account.

In Hex, you can have multiple characters, but they appear to be locking all the campaign decision points per account (at least the ones that persist beyond a single dungeon/raid run). Which means that you need multiple accounts to see all of the content.

The main reason that is problematic is that you usually don't know what faction will better suite your tastes until you've tried both. In most MMOs if you want to change your mind on a campaign choice you can start a new alt which may end up being your main if you like the choices better. In Hex you'd have to make a new account.

Since CZE are new to MMO's I think they should think long and hard about the consequences of this choice because they're doing things differently from the rest of the genre and it would be a shame if they ended up stuck with a bad choice they made because they tried to change things before knowing why they are the way they are.

Turtlewing
07-15-2013, 10:39 AM
I actually don't really understand why the faction choice is bound to your account rather than your champion since multiple champions are able to be created. Granted, I think only certain champions should have access to certain mercenaries and, as a result, certain champions would never be able to have certain mercenaries based on story decisions. With that said, I wouldn't mind knowing CZE's decision to make those choices account bound rather than character/champion bound so if anyone in CZE would like to enlighten us then feel welcome to! :D


I believe it's because champions and mercenaries are basicly the same thing (a mercenary is used as a substitute for a champion in PvE)

The design appears to be that an account has one Keep, and a Keep has several Champions and Mercenaries. Reputations are tracked at the Keep level, and affect what Mercenaries you can recruit and what faction only perks you can have.

I honestly don't know if it's intentional or not that they're locking things that are usually per character at the Keep level (making them account wide) in defiance of the usual MMO expectations regarding having multiple characters on one account.

Yoss
07-17-2013, 09:35 PM
The choice-based available-to-everyone mercs can and maybe should be bound to the Champion that unlocked them (not just account-bound, CHARACTER bound) because it's part of that character's storyline. (Example, if you play a ruthless Warrior and kill a particular NPC and it nets you an assassin merc, why should your honorable Cleric have access to that merc?)

However exlusive mercs are different. They may have story attached to them, but they are storyline neutral for a given Champion and/or account. Therefore there is no reason to bind them to any particular character or account. Let them be tradeable.

(The two paragraphs above form a rebuttal for virtually every other post the "other side" has made in this thread. Post-by-post rebuttals are below. Feel free to skip over them if you like.)

Somewhat related, I heard rumor that they might allow more than one Keep per account. I've requested a source but have not heard back yet.

@Vomitlord, post 13:
I'm a KS backer and I'm "up in arms over stuff like this", but you're way off in your assessment that I "have no problem with bebo etc being unavailable to 90% of players". It is all part of the same solution: make exclusive mercs tradeable regardless of their source (including KS). No "mental gymnastics" required.

@Hemlock, post 14:
You have the right idea, but the wrong conclusion. We need to differentiate between choice-based stuff (classes, story mercs, etc) and exclusives (only thing in this category I'm aware of is exclusive mercs).

For the choice-based stuff, I agree with you, and I'll add that it's because anyone can get any of it but no one can get all of it because what's possible is limited by your in-game choices. For the hardcore completionist, it can all be done. You'll have to make multiple characters (hopefully not multiple accounts) to do it, but it's possible.

Not so for account-bound exclusive mercs. There is no way to experience it once it's gone. This is the category that seems like it should be tradeable. I'm interested to hear arguments why this type should not be tradeable. Since you get them from a neutral and/or out-of-game thing, they are by definition story neutral, so there's no meaningful tie to a particular character's storyline.

@Hibbert, post 19:
If you want to correlate pets to mercs, then mercs need to be tradeable like pets are. In which case, I agree with you.

@Shadowelf, post 25:
I totally hear you and I'm glad they've softened a bit, yet I'm still stunned that they would account-bind a non-vanity, non-story item. I cannot for the life of me fathom why, and it's not for lack of trying. I've read 90% of the posts on these forums about this topic and there has yet to be a compelling argument in favor account-bound exclusive mercs. Anyone with a post-link or quote or just a good argument in favor, please step up! Until then, I think we've gotta keep lobbying for tradeability of game-altering exclusives.

@Atomzed, "Many good points against the OP has [sic] been brought up.":
Care to provide links? I agree many good points have been brought, but those points (propositions), while true, have generally been used in faulty arguments and do not support the intended conclusion. Rather, they either support an unrelated conclusion or a conclusion that is opposite of intended. (And of course both sides of this thing have brought up irrelevant, incorrect, or poorly-worded stuff.)

First example, Hibbert brought up pets in WoW. It was a great point, but it did not prove that exclusive mercs should be account bound; instead it proves the opposite.

Another example, Hemlock (and later KiraForce) brought up the excellent point about classes and class trees being a successful system with part of that system being cutting down on what's available, but that leads only to the conclusion that story-based (choice driven) mercs could be character-bound (not account bound, by the way); it says nothing about exclusives.

Third example, ossuary brought up that exclusives are good for game promotion. Great! He also says every TCG does this. Fine. Neither of those propositions forces us to accept account-bound game-altering exclusives. There are other options. They can use vanity items and alternate art objects for their promotions. If they want game-altering mercs, that would be fine too if they're made tradeable. Hey, then they're a collectible too!

Ossuary, post 36, said "if the game were designed from the ground up based on the understanding that it was impossible to have all of the mercenaries, no one mercenary will be vital to the experience. Therefore, by definition, you cannot be "missing out." You are not intended to have both experiences in the either / or scenario Cory laid out when he was talking about campaign path / faction mercenary choices." It's a good point, but it only supports binding of story mercs, not exclusive ones.

I've read litterally every post in this thread, plus tons of them from the others on this topic and yet there still hasn't been a logical argument from accepted propositions leading to the conclusion that game-altering exclusives need to be account-bound. It just isn't there in anything I've read so far.

So, do you have other arguments that I can refer to in order to learn why account-bound game-altering exclusives are a good idea? I'm pretty sure I've read them all but I am prepared to be corrected with sound logic, preferrably without insults. (By the way, claiming that a given person cannot be convinced because they are blinded by "such strong opinions" seems insulting when those trying to convince said person have not laid out sufficient argument.)


The mercs are a very big deal to me. They are functionally similar to vanguards in MTGO, and I had originally planned to collect them all much as I do there. They have provided me with countless hours of play that is substantially different than I would have had if I had not made an effort to get them. Every one I have missed or has become too expensive to acquire is a huge point of frustration for me. With Hex, even an expensive option will not exist. While this may not be a big deal for most, I know that each time it happens will trigger stress for me that will that originate mostly from that sense of frustration.

I believed that if I voiced my opinion, there would be others who share this concern. That was clearly not the case. I try to be as polite and forthright in my online communications as the subject will allow. However, in my short time here I have managed to anger what is apparently a large portion of the vocal community. For that, I apologize. I will likely return to lurking. First impressions are important, and mine was not well received.
I, for one, appreciate and applaud the effort. Even in this post, you argue (correctly, in my opinion) that exclusive mercs should be like vanguards: tradeable, but possibly expensive due to their exclusive nature.

@ossuary post 39:
It may also be nearly impossible to experience every card or every class or every possible alternate ending to every dungeon. The key difference is that on a player's first day, he has the option to experience any of them he wants. The ones he chooses to experience will limit what else he can see because he has finite time available to see it, but that is far different than being barred from a given option on day one. If account-bound game-altering exclusives are tradeable, then and only then can it be said that everyone at least has the option of choosing to spend their time/money on experiencing anything (but possibly not everything) the game has to offer.

@Patrigan, post 43:
Campaign choices being account-bound? Really? (Source link would be great) The choices should be character specific! Wow, I'd have been ranting about this for my entire forum life so far if I'd known this. This needs its own thread, which I just created (link).

As for the rest of your post, nice work. I agree with you that every post I've read from the "other side" of this has so far been lacking in logic, despite reasonable starting propositions. Your tavern solution is palatable (maybe even preferrable) to me, though is much more dev work than just making the exclusive mercs tradeable. Someone else also had an idea for "rent-a-merc" where you could hire exclusive mercs from another player's Keep for a limited time.

@Lafoote, post 48:
Your personal preference and experience is valuable to note in forming propositions about what players like you desire. They do not constitute an argument of logic with which to tie those propositions to any particular conclusion.

@Shrennan, post 51:
Your first paragraph is gold. I too wish to know why story choices are not character bound. They darn well should be. (Anyone with DC or RL should be really really upset if the story turns out to be account-bound instead of character-bound. You'll be forced to make other accounts without your KS stuff in order to experience the full game.)

jgsugden
07-17-2013, 10:19 PM
These games do appeal to compulsive personalities... don't they?

Personally, I am looking at the PvP side of the game as the collectible game and the PvE side of the game as pure entertainment. I think it'll be fun to have as many mercs as possible, but if Crypt tells me that the game is going to be better if you can't Pokeman all of the mercs, I'm going to trust them. Why? Because they've done so much right so far and they've earned my trust. I don't know everything there is to know about the game. They know a heck of a lot more than I do. Time for trust.

RobHaven
07-17-2013, 11:00 PM
@Patrigan, post 43:
...Your tavern solution is palatable (maybe even preferrable) to me, though is much more dev work than just making the exclusive mercs tradeable. Someone else also had an idea for "rent-a-merc" where you could hire exclusive mercs from another player's Keep for a limited time.

I pop in and out of this thread, usually with nothing to say about it. I didn't see this "merc rental" proposal before, but I like it. It still doesn't satiate the hunger of the "I want all things" crowd, but anyone who's primary concern is play options should be at least somewhat content.
I'm one of those "If I can get it, I'll try to have it." kind of people. I want to have every merc. I'm not willing to grandstand if I can't get them all, though, and I'd feel especially foolish for crying about it if every merc was available in some form (eg: rental).
Aside from the difficulty of implementing, you'd also have to figure out how renting works. Free market? Standardized pricing? Can an owner use the merc while it's up for rent? What do you do if it's rented mid-match? What if the owner has the merc in a Keep deck? What is a fair rental period?

I mean, these guys are mercenaries. Sell-swords. Don't they make their living by fighting for whoever pays them?

lyko
07-17-2013, 11:04 PM
I see so many threads about not being able to get all mercenaries....
Noob question, what are mercenaries?

Patrigan
07-17-2013, 11:23 PM
I see so many threads about not being able to get all mercenaries....
Noob question, what are mercenaries?

http://hextcg.gamepedia.com/Mercenaries

When in doubt, consult the wiki. Feel free to noitify me if you can't find some information there. (Or even better, add it yourself)

Gwaer
07-17-2013, 11:46 PM
Alright Yoss, You're saying the other side lacks logic in their arguments again. You're setting up your side as the default. Lets reframe the discussion. Cory has said that A) mercs are not game changing, they're fun ways to play the game that let you build gimmicky decks. If a merc is too strong they will nerf him. They're just for fun. It's your job as the dissenting opinion to actually be convincing rather than just chanting a mantra.

Your stance is continually opposed to the creator of the games by saying they are major game changing things that every just must have or the game is ruined. You've been constantly saying this, calling any argument that disagrees with you lacking logic. You're the one who has to sell the idea. All I have seen you do is link to a post by someone else talking about wow, a rpg, with an entirely different economy, and really different in ever possible way that intersects with account bound mercs. And then just say over and over again that mercs should be tradable, in an argument that boils down to a small part of the community just will not take the words "You cannot get all mercs" to heart.
You cannot do it, they're designing tons of them, and they're designing them in such a way that people just can't get every single one. There's not a real definitive reason that has been made clear to us. I assume that there are reasons, and I suspect a large portion of those reasons are code related. They've two years of coding done on the backend that I imagine would take a significant amount of effort to rework on the merc end. There could very well be reasons that CZE planned it that way that will be made clear to us months or even years from now. (which I have stated as a very real potential reason before, that you couldn't respond to, yet you keep saying no one has ever presented a valid point on this front)

It's pretty clear at this point though that no one could read any thread on this forum even remotely related to this subject without stumbling over you chanting this mantra, I think the powers that be have gotten an idea that it's your stance, but until you can come up with a different argument to convince people that the status quo is just not going to fly for a significant portion of the community, I think we should probably drop it and let the powers that be do their thing.

Atomzed
07-17-2013, 11:58 PM
Good summary from Gwaer. It's CZE that needs to be convinced now. Good thing is that they are listening to us.

@Yoss, I'm ok with tradable mercs from Gen-con (I still hoping that the treasure chests will generate a 'pack' instead of being bounded to the account immediately). When I replied to the OP, I was referring to the "why can't we get everything?" portion.

Yoss, I like the way you post, and the way you put forth your position. Just that you don't really need to go on a point-by-point, people-by-people rebuttal. Or at least don't do it too often :)

ossuary
07-18-2013, 04:22 AM
Keep in mind that when you say "CZE needs to be convinced," not everyone agrees with you. I think it would be more appropriate to say "CZE needs to be brought into the discussion."

We don't know yet what they have in mind for the keeps or the game's storyline. Being locked out of specific (small) pieces of the experience based on our decisions and actions could very well be the absolute best thing for the quality of the game experience. You are making assumptions based on past games, and that only works up to a certain point.

The only currently available experience I can think of that could function as a near-analogue to how the Hex world will work is EVE Online, based mostly on the fact that it's the only significantly large one-shard game server MMO. Let's not take this example TOO far, because there are literally hundreds of ways in which EVE is nothing at all like what Hex will be, and I don't want to go down that road. The only point I want to make along this avenue is how factions are handled - the choices you make and the people you associate with have a real impact on what areas of the game you can (safely at least) access content in. There are gigantic areas of the game universe that many players are simply unable to experience because of the guild they are in (or aligned against), or choices they have made. Ask one of them if the game experience is less rich because of this, or if it in fact makes the game MORE real and visceral because of the consequences and risks involved.

What I'm mostly saying is that you can't assume you know something will be bad for the game if you don't have the whole picture. We DON'T have the whole picture, so it's too soon to tell whether or not having mercs account bound or areas of the game locked behind decisions will be a problem in the long run for the majority of players. By all means, continue to voice your concerns, but please don't act as if what you're advocating is the only possible, rational solution.

Atomzed
07-18-2013, 04:32 AM
What I'm mostly saying is that you can't assume you know something will be bad for the game if you don't have the whole picture. We DON'T have the whole picture, so it's too soon to tell whether or not having mercs account bound or areas of the game locked behind decisions will be a problem in the long run for the majority of players. By all means, continue to voice your concerns, but please don't act as if what you're advocating is the only possible, rational solution.

Sigh.

Right now, I'm not assuming that my preference (and not solution which you have 'dumped' on me) is the best for the game.

I really don't mind if CZE decision is for Yoss/ ossuary/ whoever else is on this side or Gwaer/ who-ever else who is on that side.

I just think its not beneficial for the forum that we repeats the same points over and over again, without bringing in additional points. At this stage, I think this thread has discussed almost all that can be discussed. A lot of wonderful ideas from Yoss and others, and I trust that CZE will be listening.

Peace out.

RobHaven
07-18-2013, 06:41 AM
EDIT: Whoops...should have finished the thread before posting. :(


We don't know yet what they have in mind for the keeps or the game's storyline. Being locked out of specific (small) pieces of the experience based on our decisions and actions could very well be the absolute best thing for the quality of the game experience. You are making assumptions based on past games, and that only works up to a certain point.

Diesbudt
07-18-2013, 06:49 AM
Sigh.

Right now, I'm not assuming that my preference (and not solution which you have 'dumped' on me) is the best for the game.

I really don't mind if CZE decision is for Yoss/ ossuary/ whoever else is on this side or Gwaer/ who-ever else who is on that side.

I just think its not beneficial for the forum that we repeats the same points over and over again, without bringing in additional points. At this stage, I think this thread has discussed almost all that can be discussed. A lot of wonderful ideas from Yoss and others, and I trust that CZE will be listening.
Peace out.

If that logic worked here, some of those threads that had endless circle arguments wouldn't have hit 55+ pages.

However one thing I think people are not understanding on the "cannot get every merc thing" is because how PvE will work.

They want your account to be a KEEP. aka The "Army/team/castle/nation/country" (whatever you want to call it) etc. While each champion is someone part of that "army/team/castle/nation/country". And when a champion sides with a mercenary against another, story wise the whole "army/team/castle/nation/country" will be part of that decision. Not just the champion.

And I personally like that how they are doing this. It is one of the things I really like, is making choices that permenantly affect me. Not something I can change or not have any real choices.

Gorgol
07-18-2013, 06:55 AM
They want your account to be a KEEP. aka The "Army/team/castle/nation/country" (whatever you want to call it) etc. While each champion is someone part of that "army/team/castle/nation/country". And when a champion sides with a mercenary against another, story wise the whole "army/team/castle/nation/country" will be part of that decision. Not just the champion.

And I personally like that how they are doing this. It is one of the things I really like, is making choices that permenantly affect me. Not something I can change or not have any real choices.

Yeah, I'm tired of "this game your choices matter! No really!" And then it turns out no, no they don't. Then I feel I was duped into buying a game with choice and was lied to. I'm probably in the minority with that, but eh, its how I feel.
If they do the Keep = account thing, I hope they do the 1 for Ardent 1 for Underworld they were considering. I hope they don't fully compromise on choice, like most companies I've had the "pleasure" of being duped by.

ossuary
07-18-2013, 08:07 AM
They want your account to be a KEEP. aka The "Army/team/castle/nation/country" (whatever you want to call it) etc. While each champion is someone part of that "army/team/castle/nation/country". And when a champion sides with a mercenary against another, story wise the whole "army/team/castle/nation/country" will be part of that decision. Not just the champion.

And I personally like that how they are doing this. It is one of the things I really like, is making choices that permenantly affect me. Not something I can change or not have any real choices.

Yes, this. The idea is that "you" (the owner of the keep) and all of the champions / heroes / characters / mercenaries that work for YOU, are all a group with a common interest. If one of your mercenaries is of a completely different faction or alignment from you, that goes against the idea of your keep / account all being like-minded (and your decisions standing for something).

I really like this idea as well, and I want to see where they are going with it. I don't want Cory's vision diluted any further than it already has been by the "gimme everything even though I don't know what you're going for" crowd. CZE has had to make too many sacrifices to the God of "Fairness" (a.k.a. Desire) as it is.

Gorgol
07-18-2013, 08:27 AM
I really like this idea as well, and I want to see where they are going with it. I don't want Cory's vision diluted any further than it already has been by the "gimme everything even though I don't know what you're going for" crowd. CZE has had to make too many sacrifices to the God of "Fairness" (a.k.a. Desire) as it is.
I agree. I want to see where this all leads. I hope one of the Friday updates eventually at least covers some of it. It's basically been silence about the subject besides the tiny bits (and they're very tiny) of information we've been so graciously thrown.

Gorgol
07-18-2013, 08:29 AM
bah, T.T it double posted.

ossuary
07-18-2013, 08:41 AM
Are you saying they are intentionally starving us for information, like training a Doberman, so that when they finally do unleash us upon their content, we will devour and destroy all bugs like a ravenous, unstoppable juggernaut?

... actually, that's not a bad plan... ;)

ericsche21
07-18-2013, 08:45 AM
I really like this idea as well, and I want to see where they are going with it. I don't want Cory's vision diluted any further than it already has been by the "gimme everything even though I don't know what you're going for" crowd. CZE has had to make too many sacrifices to the God of "Fairness" (a.k.a. Desire) as it is.

Been lurking for awhile but, at some point people need to realize that Cory and CZE have a particular vision in mind for PvE. It sounds like being unable to collect all of the mercs for PvE is a core piece of that vision, whether from a gameplay / faction standpoint, or simply from an exclusivity standpoint. Unfortunately, while stating that it will be almost impossible to get them all, that they are currently un-tradable, and that broken ones will be fixed, they haven't told us "why" this is the case, though I imagine they have a good reason.

I know everyone has opinions on how this game should be, and I believe these discussions are useful for the community and for CZE to see. However, many of these suggestions appear to try and turn Hex into a different game than CZE has in mind. And while telling someone "if you don't like it, design your own game" is counter-productive, at some point we have to accept the core gameplay CZE wants to establish

Prism
07-18-2013, 08:50 AM
Wow these counterarguments are completely illogical. Many people are comparing "You didn't do X within time or stopped playing for a few years and it was later taken away so you don't get it"

to

"You cannot ever get X"

Mindless. There is no comparison.

Gorgol
07-18-2013, 08:52 AM
Been lurking for awhile but, at some point people need to realize that Cory and CZE have a particular vision in mind for PvE. It sounds like being unable to collect all of the mercs for PvE is a core piece of that vision, whether from a gameplay / faction standpoint, or simply from an exclusivity standpoint. Unfortunately, while stating that it will be almost impossible to get them all, that they are currently un-tradable, and that broken ones will be fixed, they haven't told us "why" this is the case, though I imagine they have a good reason.
I doubt we will know "why" until basically PVE release if even then. The only visible potential reason is thematically, which has been pointed out before. You "rule your keep" and thus any of your followers (champions) are your representatives on these PVE missions (dungeons and raids). Their choices follow your "rule". But we don't and won't for a very long time (PVE release) know much about said keep, or keeps (1 ardent, 1 underworld).
This reason should be enough though, but for many it isn't. They don't care about "lore" or "theme" or any of that. They just want to be able to play anything they want. Other games let everyone do everything, why should this be any different?
I've heard the song and dance of choices matter and have lasting impact before, but no company has ever stuck to it, and I fear CZE will be the same. It's going to be sad if we end up with some bastardized version of CZE's vision for the game.

ossuary
07-18-2013, 08:53 AM
Been lurking for awhile but, at some point people need to realize that Cory and CZE have a particular vision in mind for PvE. It sounds like being unable to collect all of the mercs for PvE is a core piece of that vision, whether from a gameplay / faction standpoint, or simply from an exclusivity standpoint. Unfortunately, while stating that it will be almost impossible to get them all, that they are currently un-tradable, and that broken ones will be fixed, they haven't told us "why" this is the case, though I imagine they have a good reason.

I know everyone has opinions on how this game should be, and I believe these discussions are useful for the community and for CZE to see. However, many of these suggestions appear to try and turn Hex into a different game than CZE has in mind. And while telling someone "if you don't like it, design your own game" is counter-productive, at some point we have to accept the core gameplay CZE wants to establish

Well said.

Turtlewing
07-18-2013, 11:58 AM
Yes, this. The idea is that "you" (the owner of the keep) and all of the champions / heroes / characters / mercenaries that work for YOU, are all a group with a common interest. If one of your mercenaries is of a completely different faction or alignment from you, that goes against the idea of your keep / account all being like-minded (and your decisions standing for something).

I really like this idea as well, and I want to see where they are going with it. I don't want Cory's vision diluted any further than it already has been by the "gimme everything even though I don't know what you're going for" crowd. CZE has had to make too many sacrifices to the God of "Fairness" (a.k.a. Desire) as it is.

The main issue I have with this system is that in most MMOs those sort of decisions are locked to a Character. And when we asked if you would be able to have multiple characters from differing factions we were told "yes" (implying that if you can have multiple characters with different combinations of decisions).

Now it turns out that was something of a trick answer as what's happened is Hex locks all the faction standing stuff to your Keep, and it's looking like you can't have more than one Keep. So while it's true that you can have more than one character you cannot in actuality use those multiple characters to play out different decisions on separate characters (as the decisions are Keep bound not character bound).

That's sort of like if someone asks "is there milk in this because I'm mildly allergic", and they answer they get back is "no" only to find out there was cheese in it instead.

RobHaven
07-18-2013, 12:11 PM
Maybe I'm misremembering, but wasn't the original intention to have only one keep and only one faction alignment? I thought the ability to have both factions on one account was added in response to the community's feedback. Can someone verify that? As mentioned many times before, my memory is god awful.

Gwaer
07-18-2013, 12:42 PM
You can use any champions from ardent or underworld in your keep, and you can change your decisions in dungeons, if there's a merc in a dungeon that unlocks from making one choice, and another from a different choice, you can run it twice and get both, what is locked to account has been stated to be(all of this could have changed) Factions only, in the arena dungeon, you pick a faction, and you work to get faction points, you can't ever choose the other faction on any character. Same with i think they have only spoiled 4 factions, 2 you can pick, the other two are locked out of your account.

So it's not a lot of decisions that you're locked out of, just 5 different places so far, the arena dungeon, and 4 pve factions. out of the 6 you can pick 3.

Gorgol
07-18-2013, 12:57 PM
You can use any champions from ardent or underworld in your keep, and you can change your decisions in dungeons, if there's a merc in a dungeon that unlocks from making one choice, and another from a different choice, you can run it twice and get both, what is locked to account has been stated to be(all of this could have changed) Factions only, in the arena dungeon, you pick a faction, and you work to get faction points, you can't ever choose the other faction on any character. Same with i think they have only spoiled 4 factions, 2 you can pick, the other two are locked out of your account.

So it's not a lot of decisions that you're locked out of, just 5 different places so far, the arena dungeon, and 4 pve factions. out of the 6 you can pick 3.
So the only mercenaries you're locked out of is ones from those factions?
Its this kind of differing answer from some others thats the reason I want a Friday update on this.

true
07-18-2013, 01:15 PM
Just remember that the KS have exclusive Mercs that the players that come later will never get. Or so Crypo has promised. The tresure chest thing is a decent compromise but i am sad that I can't get (Unless possibly for was too fricking much on ebay) This years gen con merc till next year.

Turtlewing
07-18-2013, 02:33 PM
You can use any champions from ardent or underworld in your keep, and you can change your decisions in dungeons, if there's a merc in a dungeon that unlocks from making one choice, and another from a different choice, you can run it twice and get both, what is locked to account has been stated to be(all of this could have changed) Factions only, in the arena dungeon, you pick a faction, and you work to get faction points, you can't ever choose the other faction on any character. Same with i think they have only spoiled 4 factions, 2 you can pick, the other two are locked out of your account.

So it's not a lot of decisions that you're locked out of, just 5 different places so far, the arena dungeon, and 4 pve factions. out of the 6 you can pick 3.

If you don't like having decision points locked to an account, the fact that it's only a small number of decision points doesn't make it no longer an issue.

Also consider that the number of decision points will probably grow over time.

Vibraxus
07-18-2013, 02:58 PM
If you don't like having decision points locked to an account, the fact that it's only a small number of decision points doesn't make it no longer an issue.

Also consider that the number of decision points will probably grow over time.

And will probably not be just 6 at launch. This is quite frankly a HUGE deal to me. As stated, Im fine with any individual champion or merc I have being locked into what decisions he/she makes in regards to available factions/faction cards, but to lock out my entire account based on my first champion...well just not something Id ever want to see.

Gorgol
07-18-2013, 02:59 PM
to lock out my entire account based on my first champion...well just not something Id ever want to see.
As it stands, thats how its going to be (until we hear otherwise)

Gwaer
07-18-2013, 03:10 PM
Don't get me wrong, I am questionable on the whole thing. I think there are lots of opportunities for this to be awesome, and for it to fail spectacularly. I don't want them to just play it safe on everything, though. In the future it may be possible to add in a second keep just for making different faction based decisions if it goes very badly. It's not unfixable by any stretch of the imagination. Also, alt accounts are a bit annoying but can workaround the issue, and you can trade your cards back and forth between them, so it won't be the end of the world regardless how this plays out.

Vibraxus
07-18-2013, 03:15 PM
Don't get me wrong, I am questionable on the whole thing. I think there are lots of opportunities for this to be awesome, and for it to fail spectacularly. I don't want them to just play it safe on everything, though. In the future it may be possible to add in a second keep just for making different faction based decisions if it goes very badly. It's not unfixable by any stretch of the imagination. Also, alt accounts are a bit annoying but can workaround the issue, and you can trade your cards back and forth between them, so it won't be the end of the world regardless how this plays out.

I dont think CZE wants everybody making multiple accounts to cover every potential combo of factions you can acquire. The simple, and IMHO best, fix for this is for factions to be locked to the individual champion/merc.

Gorgol
07-18-2013, 03:17 PM
Don't get me wrong, I am questionable on the whole thing. I think there are lots of opportunities for this to be awesome, and for it to fail spectacularly. I don't want them to just play it safe on everything, though. In the future it may be possible to add in a second keep just for making different faction based decisions if it goes very badly. It's not unfixable by any stretch of the imagination. Also, alt accounts are a bit annoying but can workaround the issue, and you can trade your cards back and forth between them, so it won't be the end of the world regardless how this plays out.
Make an option... "Reset all faction choices" and then when you hit yes it removes any faction specific items, and lets you re-do whatever that needs redone regarding factions. You only ever get the one sides items at one time, but you can playthrough it all in 1 account. And I assume this is the main issue anyway for needing second account.

Yoss
07-18-2013, 03:27 PM
@Gwaer:
You're right, I didn't include my argument in that post, only a small subset of my conclusions. Perhaps I should start including it every time I post, though that seems tiresome. The entirety is long and detailed and unrefuted (so far). You can find and discuss it here (link). You can also find it by clicking through the Hot Topics link in my signature, where this is currently the second item on the list. The newest part of my large proposal ("one player, one account") has not been folded into the Stakeholder Analysis yet; you can find it here (link) and I'm not sure yet whether all logical arguments there agree with me or not since it's so new.

Since I've already laid out my argument in great detail and it languishes uncontested, I am spending my time in all these pseudo-duplicate threads refuting the arguments of others.

As far as backend dev time, obviously only CZE knows whether anything we propose is cheap or expensive to implement. Our business as fans in the forums should be proposing and discussing how we think things should be given infinite CZE resources. Let CZE decide which of our ideas get implemented given their (not unlimited) resources.

@ossuary, post 68:
Well said, though I do not agree with every point. Most of what I would argue with is covered in my "one player, one account" thread, where I go into which things should be account-bound versus character-bound versus keep-bound versus unbound, mostly from the standpoint of discouraging multiaccounting.

@Diesbudt, post 71, Gorgol, post 72, ossuary, post 73, and all others talking about account structures and Keeps and so on:
See my "one player, one account" thread please. In short, we do not yet know what the relationship of Champion to Keep to Accounts will be, and there are pros and cons depending on which approach they go with.

@Prism, post 78:
You're hiding behind vague references to "these counterarguments". Perhaps if you want to call someone out you should do it by name or post number.

@true, post 85:
Ks exclusive mercs must be treated exactly the same as all other exclusive mercs otherwise we're just being hypocrites. I think you all know my stance on it by now.


I dont think CZE wants everybody making multiple accounts to cover every potential combo of factions you can acquire. The simple, and IMHO best, fix for this is for factions to be locked to the individual champion/merc.

In summary, please participate in my Stakeholder Analysis and One Player, One Account threads, where I've laid out a good framework for discussion and tracking of what we come up with.

Gwaer
07-18-2013, 03:51 PM
You're pulling your normal thing here, and willfully ignoring the actual meat of an argument. My issue is not that you didn't include your argument, it's that we've all seen it repeatedly, you've said the same thing an uncountable number of times. Many people disagree with you, for many reasons. You say they're not logical, you're trying to be a gatekeeper of the conversation while holding a very biased opinion, that doesn't fly. CZE has surely seen both sides of the argument by now, I don't see any reason to continue beating the same dead horse. I'm pretty sure it isn't even a horse anymore at this point, just a hole in the ground.

Yoss
07-18-2013, 04:04 PM
You're pulling your normal thing here, and willfully ignoring the actual meat of an argument. My issue is not that you didn't include your argument, it's that we've all seen it repeatedly, you've said the same thing an uncountable number of times. Many people disagree with you, for many reasons. You say they're not logical, you're trying to be a gatekeeper of the conversation while holding a very biased opinion, that doesn't fly. CZE has surely seen both sides of the argument by now, I don't see any reason to continue beating the same dead horse. I'm pretty sure it isn't even a horse anymore at this point, just a hole in the ground.
What "meat" am I ignoring? I spend HOURS trying to make sure I'm catching everything, both in defending my stances and in giving fair (but critical) treatment to others. This is why I like to multiquote: so people can't (in good faith) make posts like you just did and accuse me of foul play. So, you're calling me out. Fine. Do so with more than slanderous statements like "You're pulling your normal thing here, and willfully ignoring the actual meat of an argument." Maybe you're right that I missed something. Point it out specifically, like I've done for you and others plenty of times, even when I'm repeating myself.

EDIT:
If you refer to "many people" with "many reasons", there's nothing for me to defend. I need clear arguments to work with. And it will be much easier if it's done in the thread where my arguments actually exist, not these proxies.

Gwaer
07-18-2013, 04:11 PM
I'll say it again, as plainly as possible, Lets drop it until we have more information. CZE has seen both sides of our discussion in what 4-5 threads now, for hundreds of posts. You've not added anything in ages, You've summed up the same position, people have counterpointed it, and you have said, but look what meldryn said, for the hundredth time. The forum as a whole had moved on from all of these threads for nearly a week in some cases, and then you come back and bump them all, and don't add anything to the discussion. Just the same stuff that has been said repeatedly already. To me it looks like you just say it all the time so you can make it look like it's a more contentious issue than it is.


Lets argue about something else. =/

stiii
07-18-2013, 04:14 PM
If you want people to drop things you might want to consider not insulting them.

Yoss
07-18-2013, 04:20 PM
I'll say it again, as plainly as possible, Lets drop it until we have more information. CZE has seen both sides of our discussion in what 4-5 threads now, for hundreds of posts. You've not added anything in ages, You've summed up the same position, people have counterpointed it, and you have said, but look what meldryn said, for the hundredth time. The forum as a whole had moved on from all of these threads for nearly a week in some cases, and then you come back and bump them all, and don't add anything to the discussion. Just the same stuff that has been said repeatedly already. To me it looks like you just say it all the time so you can make it look like it's a more contentious issue than it is.


Lets argue about something else. =/
If we'd reached a genuine impass I could agree with you. However, so far as I can tell no one is defeating my arguments (definition of "tournament" being a possible exception, but that's a different thread). Sure there are people who say "I do not agree" in various ways, but except for opinions (which of course cannot be supported nor defeated by logic) I do not recall any objective criticism that has held up under scrutiny. We can take this to PM if you want, but I'm dead serious in my belief that I've made a good faith and successful effort to defend against all objections. Please, PLEASE, help me refine my arguments. I have no desire to hide behind failed logic, and would prefer to avoid standing behind opinions as much as possible.

EDIT:
To clarify, I am not trying to say that ya'lls opinions are not important to me. Quite the contrary. I am just trying to point out that I do not believe we are at an impasse of contradictory opinions. I believe we are still in a realm of facts, data, and logic on these issues. Please forgive me if I've insulted.


In summary, please participate in my Stakeholder Analysis and One Player, One Account threads, where I've laid out a good framework for discussion and tracking of what we come up with.

Gwaer
07-18-2013, 04:31 PM
Okay, this thread we're rehashing Mercs again? Alright, I call upon the argument I never saw you successfully defend against. If there is a coding reason to implement it this way, it is not worth pushing back the release of the game to make mercs tradable.

If there's a unity of vision, that requires this, similar to locking horde from making alliance characters on pvp servers when the game first launched, like for example... A dungeon that forces players to use mercs of a specific faction that you have unlocked, to compete against people that made the opposite choice, for something important, lets say, the lore of the world. If they had planned to make people that had made these choices dictate the direction the lore goes and wanted people to feel very strongly about their faction, this is the best way to implement that. Or if there are faction wide bonuses that can be turned on for the server meeting certain requirements, one faction being above the other in a global competition of some sort, to stop everyone to just switching to their characters on those factions, this is the best way to implement that. We're working on incomplete information, but there are a lot of excellent mechanics that can be brought out because of this setup.

But that's just "story mercs". Separating the types of mercs to tradable and nontradable would definitely require a backend retool. Which would definitely push the game back, so we're hitting constraints from argument 1.

Yoss
07-18-2013, 05:10 PM
To this and all other threads I've posted in recently:

I will try to tone it down. Some of you have called me out on my agression and you're right, I've been letting people get under my skin and reacting badly. For that I am truly sorry.

I will not, however, just drop it, as some have proposed. My investment (and I hope other's agree for theirs) is worth protecting by making this game as good as can be. Since I, and many others, believe we know what's best for the game, discussion is necessary. That discussion can easily become impassioned because we care about Hex and its success. We need to be careful to treat each other well as our passions seek to dominate. I have not always lived up to that calling, and I'm sorry.

Yoss
07-18-2013, 05:33 PM
Okay, this thread we're rehashing Mercs again? Alright, I call upon the argument I never saw you successfully defend against. If there is a coding reason to implement it this way, it is not worth pushing back the release of the game to make mercs tradable.

If there's a unity of vision, that requires this, similar to locking horde from making alliance characters on pvp servers when the game first launched, like for example... A dungeon that forces players to use mercs of a specific faction that you have unlocked, to compete against people that made the opposite choice, for something important, lets say, the lore of the world. If they had planned to make people that had made these choices dictate the direction the lore goes and wanted people to feel very strongly about their faction, this is the best way to implement that. Or if there are faction wide bonuses that can be turned on for the server meeting certain requirements, one faction being above the other in a global competition of some sort, to stop everyone to just switching to their characters on those factions, this is the best way to implement that. We're working on incomplete information, but there are a lot of excellent mechanics that can be brought out because of this setup.

But that's just "story mercs". Separating the types of mercs to tradable and nontradable would definitely require a backend retool. Which would definitely push the game back, so we're hitting constraints from argument 1.
There are two parts to all our proposals: where should we go and how do we get there. It seems you're in agreement about "where should we go", and that's all I've been asking for. I'm happy to leave the implementation details for CZE to do it according to what makes sense for thier timeline.

Quasari
07-18-2013, 05:38 PM
Here's what's going on.

Everything they've done is tied to the account, not the individual characters(which would then be tied to the account). All cards are accessible on all characters you have. Originally they were designing for one account to be locked to one faction, much like WoW was with servers. This was all so that it would make sense that your keep(and you being the commander of this keep) would make choices that permeate throughout the account. The mercenaries aren't coming to fight for the character, but for the regiment in the keep. All the cards and equipment you gather are property of this keep and all characters/mercenaries can load themselves out with this. This all makes sense.

Now what doesn't make sense is that now your keep is that it's now both ardent and underworld. However the system is in place that your characters work for the keep and that you, the player, are the commander of the keep. It still makes sense that faction A that hates faction B won't work with you if you are working with faction B.

If we get into the system, to make mercenaries work on a per character level, a lot would have to change. The entire mercenary system would have to be reworked to work with both account bound and character bound mercenaries. They don't really have anything character bound(other than talents/levels), so they'd have to rework that. This can cause a lot of problems.

Yoss
07-18-2013, 05:41 PM
I'd like to respond to you here:
http://forums.cryptozoic.com/showthread.php?t=26401

ericsche21
07-18-2013, 07:16 PM
To this and all other threads I've posted in recently:

I will try to tone it down. Some of you have called me out on my agression and you're right, I've been letting people get under my skin and reacting badly. For that I am truly sorry.

I will not, however, just drop it, as some have proposed. My investment (and I hope other's agree for theirs) is worth protecting by making this game as good as can be. Since I, and many others, believe we know what's best for the game, discussion is necessary. That discussion can easily become impassioned because we care about Hex and its success. We need to be careful to treat each other well as our passions seek to dominate. I have not always lived up to that calling, and I'm sorry.

Yoss, I need to preface this with the fact that I greatly appreciate your efforts in organizing thread conversations and particularly your contributions to the financial analysis of booster and plat conversation. Without much of your help, many of these threads would be wondering aimlessly, discussing the same issue over multiple threads.

However, I take umbrage with your statement:
"I will not, however, just drop it, as some have proposed. My investment (and I hope other's agree for theirs) is worth protecting by making this game as good as can be. Since I, and many others, believe we know what's best for the game, discussion is necessary"

First, your investment (and every other kickstarter backer) goes no further than your kickstarter rewards. Backing a game through kickstarter provides no creative or development input (unless specifically stated in a tier reward), and no return on investment beyond what is promised under your backing tier. And even then, I argue that kickstarter rewards are more or less similar to preordering any other game. You get a certain benefit for giving them money early and that's it. Kickstarter backers are not investors in the traditional sense: we gave various amounts of money for pre-decided perks and nothing more. And while I can appreciate discussion over the specifics of those perks, our expectation to influence in game development ends there (if it even began). And I understand many people gave a lot of money, but we didn't give money to be hired into the development team, we gave money in good faith that they'd continue to develop their product, and that we'd get a few perks in return. So I take exception to the notion that your discussions on altering what are most likely core PvE components will protect our investments and make the best game that you and others want. I personally backed so that CZE can develop their vision for Hex, not so that a forum can bastardize a great concept because they think they know better.

Now, with that all said, I believe these discussions (and many of your personal contributions) are going to be a great benefit moving forward for CZE as they continue to finalize the game. However, I believe a combination of exuberance for this game, financial commitment and slow development news has pushed everyone a bit far in what they think their role is in Hex's development and what they think is best for this game. It'd be nice if forums postures become less stubborn and binary, because right now it's just a bunch of posters rehashing the same 10 topics using absolutes.

RobHaven
07-18-2013, 08:40 PM
My investment (and I hope other's agree for theirs) is worth protecting by making this game as good as can be. Since I, and many others, believe we know what's best for the game, discussion is necessary. That discussion can easily become impassioned because we care about Hex and its success. We need to be careful to treat each other well as our passions seek to dominate. I have not always lived up to that calling, and I'm sorry.

I've participated in a lot of the discussions because I'm interested in the game, but I would never claim to "know what's best" about a game I have only a fraction of the information for. If you want to discuss/argue hypotheticals, we can do that; I think it'd be very misguided (and arrogant) to presume to know what "fixes" a game needs when you don't even know what the game actually entails.


... things ...

I hate myself with a fiery passion for doing this, but..
"This" and also "+1"
I don't have anything to add to his post, but I think it was very, very well said.

Gorgol
07-18-2013, 08:43 PM
I've participated in a lot of the discussions because I'm interested in the game, but I would never claim to "know what's best" about a game I have only a fraction of the information for. If you want to discuss/argue hypotheticals, we can do that; I think it'd be very misguided (and arrogant) to presume to know what "fixes" a game needs when you don't even know what the game actually entails.
This is how I feel as well. Wonder how many others are like us?

Atomzed
07-18-2013, 08:59 PM
This is how I feel as well. Wonder how many others are like us?

Add me to that group. :)

Maphalux
07-18-2013, 09:19 PM
I also feel the same way. When it comes to these types of discussions, I have actually avoided posting my input because I can't really know all the specifics. I can tell Cryptozoic what I would like to see based on being a gamer and a consumer, but that might be at odds with what is best for CZE/the game.

Gwaer
07-18-2013, 09:51 PM
Ericsche21, thanks for a great post. I wish I could have said it that well. Add me to the list.

Justinkp
07-18-2013, 10:04 PM
I've participated in a lot of the discussions because I'm interested in the game, but I would never claim to "know what's best" about a game I have only a fraction of the information for. If you want to discuss/argue hypotheticals, we can do that; I think it'd be very misguided (and arrogant) to presume to know what "fixes" a game needs when you don't even know what the game actually entails.
.

Excellent point and one everyone should read and try to understand.

I would like to say though, thst when Yoss mentioned his "investment" he may not have meant his KS pledge bit the psychological and emotional investment he's made, in addition to the huge investment in time and effort to attempt to discuss things in a logical manner which by measure exceeds his KS investment.

Edit: Guess I was wrong here :p

Yoss
07-18-2013, 10:19 PM
Upon second reading, I see that I failed again in conveying my intent properly, as eric has so eloquently described.

It seems my post has been construed as "I paid, so I have a right to tell CZE what to do." This is not what I meant. My "investment" here is not so different than if I'd have bought 300 packs of MTG Alpha on preorder. I have no authority to design the game, but I do very much have an interest (in a real monetary sense) in whether or not Hex is a success. If Hex is a flop, then my Kickstarter money is down the drain. Obviously I do not expect Hex to flop or I would not have put so much money on the line for it. However, a version of Hex with a million players that lasts 20 years will mean a lot more for the value of my "investment" than a Hex with only a hundred thousand players that lasts only two years. Therefore, I seek to use my miniscule influence to help the captain of the ship steer a good course. Cory is the captain. He has more information than any of us and at the end of the day we must follow his judgement. That should not stop us from trying to influence decisions he makes, and indeed we already have in a few ways.

As for "I think I know best", I refer to the general tendency of human beings to think that they are right in their thinking until proven wrong in some way, but maybe I'm the only one with that problem. I do not claim to always be right, but I do claim to have good ideas and I find that strongly stated arguments generate more momentum for a discussion than ones couched in endless caveats. I fully expect to have my course corrected through the back and forth of discussion and often soften my stance as all sides begin to put forth their information.

EDIT:
Thanks for the defense, Justin, but I was indeed talking about the money, just not in the way people were thinking. :p Come to think of it though, I have indeed invested a lot of time and emotion too.

Justinkp
07-18-2013, 10:41 PM
There are two parts to all our proposals: where should we go and how do we get there. It seems you're in agreement about "where should we go", and that's all I've been asking for. I'm happy to leave the implementation details for CZE to do it according to what makes sense for thier timeline.

Yoss, I'm a big fan of both yours and Gwaer's. I agree with most of your positions on trading and and on World Firsts (even though I don't really care about them much). I appreciate the large amount of effort you put into tryng to post solid logical arguments, something sadly lacking on most forums.

I don't agree with everything here-I could speculate about your mental state but I don't know how much that would help. I do suspect you may feel "ganged up on" but I could easily be wrong.

Here I think you misinterpret Gwaer's post. If he only mentioned the coding issue you'd have a point but his list of other possible features obtainable through one account with character actions blocking off choices seems to show you aren't in agreement on "where you should go".

There is a refutation of your stakeholder points linked at the top of this page that I believe touches on the points of most people who are arguing-you can't realistically speculate on Cory and Cryptozoic's desires. Not only is it possible, its almost certain their keeping some of their goals from us.

I do not believe Cory and the rest of CZE are stupid and I don't think you do either. Therefore there is a very good chance they have a vision that makes account binding -which may look foolish to us with our lack of information-a very important part of their vision. I do not have implicit trust in the team but at this point I'm very curious what features they have that make account binding a neccessity. I don't believe they would embrace the negatives-which you have explicated very well-without significant positives (or at the worst coding that's too difficult to change at this point-I don't believe this is the case but it is possible). I don't want their vision to be changed yet again due to fan backlash. We are missing key information.

The points I have made could be used badly-its not generally good to just trust in the team's holy vision and disallow all dissent. In this case I feel you have argued the point to its limit and logic and intuition tells me we aren't seeing everything.

You of course shouldn't accept this logic for why its a bad idea to make KS exclusive mercs tradeable ;)

Gwaer, I don't think Yoss reposted to make points seem more contentious than they are. He's passionate about the game and is doing what he thinks is best for it. We may e in get lucky and because of all the noise get an update with information explaining this to most peoples' satisfaction. I said it before and I'll say it agsin-,we're all on the same "side"wanting this game to be as good as possible and personal insults don't help us or the game.

(I would reread some of Yoss' points in theme tournament thread-it seemed to me he made several logical points thst were discounted for poor reasons :) )

Gwaer
07-18-2013, 10:54 PM
I have indeed invested a lot of time and emotion too.
Many of us have, and believe me I welcome a good debate trying to hash out ideas and hoping that CZE reads it and comes from a more knowledgeable stance. I just don't want them to couch their game in the tired tropes of yesteryear I'd like them to push forward and try some new spins, make decisions count, make stuff actually hard to do. See how it goes. Ultimately that's my stance, these guys had some good ideas, I'd like to see them to their fruition. Patches can always add a second keep, or unlock factions on a per champion basis, but until that is shown to be necessary, I think we should let them give it a shot.

Justinkp
07-18-2013, 11:04 PM
Many of us have, and believe me I welcome a good debate trying to hash out ideas and hoping that CZE reads it and comes from a more knowledgeable stance. I just don't want them to couch their game in the tired tropes of yesteryear I'd like them to push forward and try some new spins, make decisions count, make stuff actually hard to do. See how it goes. Ultimately that's my stance, these guys had some good ideas, I'd like to see them to their fruition. Patches can always add a second keep, or unlock factions on a per champion basis, but until that is shown to be necessary, I think we should let them give it a shot.

This could be one of the most important practical points-if they do "screw the pooch" (that's such a messed up phrase when you think about it) it can be fixed with patches, etc. If it changes now we'll never see the original vision whatever it is. We don't risk much by letting them do what they planned on-they've been thinking about this for a long time after all.

RobHaven
07-19-2013, 05:52 AM
My "investment" here is not so different than if I'd have bought 300 packs of MTG Alpha on preorder. I have no authority to design the game, but I do very much have an interest (in a real monetary sense) in whether or not Hex is a success. If Hex is a flop, then my Kickstarter money is down the drain. Obviously I do not expect Hex to flop or I would not have put so much money on the line for it.

Agreed. And if this were the end of what could be seen as entitlement (I don't really want to use so harsh a word, but my limited vocabulary lacks anything more fitting) then I think we'd be okay with it. But where I think it goes "too far" is...


Therefore, I seek to use my miniscule influence to help the captain of the ship steer a good course. Cory is the captain. He has more information than any of us and at the end of the day we must follow his judgement. That should not stop us from trying to influence decisions he makes, and indeed we already have in a few ways.

The things that have been changed are not really integral to the vision of the content they've laid out: Should a card be sold with tshirts, should you miss out because you can't get to AnyCon, should We the Greedy get access to alpha. They also made a concession that I don't know I'm happy about: The ability to have both factions represented on your account. And my issue with that change is exactly my issue with what you're saying - we're demanding changes based on a few lines of detail without knowing the context. Context can make all the difference in the world. I, personally, would like playing both factions, but I'm not willing to grandstand without having first accrued enough experience in the game to know that my position is valid.


As for "I think I know best", I refer to the general tendency of human beings to think that they are right in their thinking until proven wrong in some way, but maybe I'm the only one with that problem. I do not claim to always be right, but I do claim to have good ideas and I find that strongly stated arguments generate more momentum for a discussion than ones couched in endless caveats.

There are occasions where (as Gwaer said) the burden of proof is on the person objecting. It's not on anyone else to prove you "wrong," it's on you to make a strong case (not to prove yourself "right"). It's not about who is right or who is wrong, it's about what we'd like to see in the game. Only a dialogue can generate progress; both sides shouting their monologues over the other side won't get us anywhere. And that takes me to my next point...


I fully expect to have my course corrected through the back and forth of discussion and often soften my stance as all sides begin to put forth their information.

As has been accused of me, this whole thread-derailment occurred because there are people who don't feel like you will. You made several threads that contain [potentially] significant discussion of various game elements. You then declare your opinion to be the "correct" opinion and challenge everyone else to "prove you wrong." I did the same thing in the "will -X defense to a troop in the library send him to the graveyard" thread...and when I was proven wrong, I took my beating like a man. The next morning I woke up and decided there was a lesson to be learned: Discussions need to be two sided. Someone (Stii? Nicosharp? Gwaer? You?) made me realize that I wasn't really considering the other side of things because I was so sure that I was right. How could I know that when I haven't played the game? I should have expressed my opinion, argued its merits, and left it at that. Agree to disagree or come to a consensus.

This is getting long and I'm not making my point very well.

I like the work you do. I like the effort you put in. I like your attention to detail while addressing each person individually. But sometimes I get frustrated when I see "this is how it needs to be, we the community demand it." I didn't necessarily support that particular position of that particular topic, and if I did I wouldn't demand Crypto's attention to what I think they should do. I would make a suggestion. I would seek to open a dialogue between the community and the developers. I know that is exactly what you set out to do in your catch-all thread, but I (for one) feel like you're trying to use blunt force in driving the discussion.

I still don't feel like I'm making my point...I must be a shitty writer. Let me cut out all of the long-winded, circuitous babble and try to get right to it: I want to discuss things with you. I want to hear what you have to say. I want you to hear what I have to say. There are times where some positions have more merit than others, but almost everything we discuss is based on speculation, not fact. Or it's based on incomplete fact and incomplete metrics. If you're going to call Crypto's attention to our discussions, please accurately represent all sides. Everyone deserves to be a part of the conversation, and when a decent representation is accumulated behind any position, it should be noted. I can appreciate that you feel you're "right," but I think it's wrong to make such a declaration.

Sorry. I know this is long as shit and takes 10,000 words to barely make my point. I don't know how to articulate my opinion as well as others have, but I'm trying. I hope the message is clear enough, and I also hope you know I'm not trying to shout you down or cause a "ganging up" situation. My only intent is to continue the healthy development of the core of the community - those driving the discussions.

ossuary
07-19-2013, 06:28 AM
I've participated in a lot of the discussions because I'm interested in the game, but I would never claim to "know what's best" about a game I have only a fraction of the information for. If you want to discuss/argue hypotheticals, we can do that; I think it'd be very misguided (and arrogant) to presume to know what "fixes" a game needs when you don't even know what the game actually entails.

Add me to the list of people that feels this way. I've said repeatedly that you can't "know" whether or not something is working if you don't have all the info. You can post as many "logical, rational" arguments as you want, they are still just conjecture until we either have all the information, or see the systems in action. And basing your opinion on a new game by old games that aren't the same thing is also a fallacy.

Yoss
07-19-2013, 09:40 AM
@Justin:
Thanks. The only point I'd like to discuss more is the "refutation of your stakeholder points". Are you referring to the Stakeholder Analysis thread (link)? If so, I'd prefer that you post your concern there. (Click through Hot Topics in my sig, then the second item on the list.)

@Rob:
You wrote well. I am fine accepting the burden of proof when I originate an idea. I'm pretty sure that I have always put forth my ideas in as much detail as possible and have invited constructive feedback on improvements. Indeed, the OP in most of my threads has been edited so many times that it hardly resembles the original. I read every post in every one of my threads. I incorporate every idea that I think has merit and for the others I respond with why I'm not yet convinced. Where you probably have your most valid point against me is in threads I did not start, because it is difficult to maintain my running log of the conversation and things become lost and/or repetitive. It's why I try to direct people to the threads where I own the OP.

@Gwaer, and Justin's post 113:
Since it's not really on topic here, I will respond to these in the "one player, one account" thread (link). (I have not yet done so.)

(We can return to discussing the OP now, if you all agree.)

RobHaven
07-19-2013, 09:59 AM
I read every post in every one of my threads. I incorporate every idea that I think has merit and for the others I respond with why I'm not yet convinced.

I really don't want to drag this on because it's so off topic, but this is the sort of thing I was talking about. You're making a unilateral judgment call about the validity of ideas. If you're going to create a thread that is intended to communicate the entire group's concerns and thoughts, I'd like all supported ideas to be represented...not just those you've been convinced of.

Regarding the OP, I can get behind the compromise that exclusive mercs are tradable, any others aren't.

Grumph
07-19-2013, 10:50 AM
Making a thread like this after they made a tough decision only serves to make them second guess that decision. He even said something about this particular decision being made to remain true to the vision that they have for the game. At this point in the process they should be working on the undeveloped parts of the game, not worrying about/reconsidering decisions that they've already made in order to please every corner of the community.

So far there are an estimated 1600ish armor pieces in the game, 300 pve cards, 350 pvp cards, 11 mercs(pre-release) ?? sleeves. They are planning on releasing more of all of these in future updates. No two people will have the same collection with this many variables. So when your feeling upset/jealous that someone has a merc/card/equipment that you don't have, relax, you probably have several things in your collection that they don't.

They have already given out 9 mercs for kick starter and announced 2 to be given at gencon. The number of mercs that you can get from PvE gameplay is probably going to be pretty high, as well as the number that you can get from chests. How many exclusive mercs will be given out at events(physical and in game). How many mercs will they be releasing with new sets? I'm pretty sure that when he said that it will be impossible to collect them all he was talking about the shear number of them and the amount of time/money that would be required to collect them all as well as your choices in the story mode. There are just too many unknowns at this point to ask for a change. Plus if your a kickstarter backer and your asking for this then you're being pretty hypocritical as you have a good amount of mercs and pve cards already that no one else will be getting.... ever.

Also consider the fact that sometimes a particular mechanic in a game needs to be in place for a reason. It might not make sense until you actually play the game. Take perma-death, it doesn't work in most games, but it definitely has it's place in others. It is one thing to make suggestions for a games development but it's another thing entirely to continue to plead after they have thought long and hard and made a tough decision.

nicosharp
07-19-2013, 11:16 AM
Quick 2 cents:
I can appreciate the idea of having something exclusive, that not everyone can get unless they go to great lengths or make all the same in-game choices that you do.
This exclusivity I can attribute to resemble the first Jedi of Star Wars Galaxy MMO, or the first few WOW players that acquired Legendary/Epic gear.

There are two major differences to the two examples above when applied to HEX TCG -
1) Not everyone will be offered the same fighting chance for the exclusive 'card'
2) The exclusive 'card' will not effect the PvP game in anyway.

As long as #1 and #2 above are always tied to the card, I have no problem with the card existing.

The counter-argument to this is if the exclusive 'card', even just for PvE, gives an inherent advantage to players for farming purposes over other accessible options, that can compute to real financial gains.

ossuary
07-19-2013, 11:58 AM
I really don't want to drag this on because it's so off topic, but this is the sort of thing I was talking about. You're making a unilateral judgment call about the validity of ideas. If you're going to create a thread that is intended to communicate the entire group's concerns and thoughts, I'd like all supported ideas to be represented...not just those you've been convinced of.

THANK YOU, Rob. I've been trying to figure out exactly what it was about this whole thing that was bothering me, but I couldn't quite put it into words (rare for me, I know). But that's exactly it. You can claim to be the consolidator of ideas, and claim that you are presenting the community's key ideas in an unbiased way, but then start curating what is and is not included in that list of ideas.

Nevermind the fact that not everyone agrees with your opinion or presentation of the ideas that you DO include in the "master thread" (or whether, in fact, such a thread is even valid, useful, or in keeping with the forum COC)... if you are not even going to include subjects in that list until you, personally, are "convinced" that it's a good idea, you're no longer serving the collective will of the community, you're serving your own interests, and nothing else.

All or nothing.

Gwaer
07-19-2013, 12:12 PM
I agree wholeheartedly, and that's some of what I failed to convey earlier. Rob really knocked the ball out of the park with that post.
Grumph also had some excellent points. Well said.

Turtlewing
07-19-2013, 01:14 PM
And will probably not be just 6 at launch. This is quite frankly a HUGE deal to me. As stated, Im fine with any individual champion or merc I have being locked into what decisions he/she makes in regards to available factions/faction cards, but to lock out my entire account based on my first champion...well just not something Id ever want to see.

Technically I think the plan is to lock it to your keep (and keeps are one per account). I know this sounds like splitting hairs, but I bring it up because in my mind allowing multiple keeps per account should be an adequate resolution to the issue (basicly equivalent to allowing multiple characters per account in other MMOs).

That way a given keep can't be in good with opposing factions, can't have mutually exclusive mercenaries, etc.

However I as a player don't have to have two accounts to try both sides of the Squirrels vs Dinosaurs event, etc.

Gwaer
07-19-2013, 01:17 PM
I'm fine with that solution, if it turned out to be necessary for the survival of the game. I'd prefer it to launch as intended and see how it goes, though. Making decisions matter, not just to the character you're playing but to you as a player, because you may not get to experience the other side of the story would mean that you would work harder for your side, especially if there are global bonuses for everyone of your faction you could work for.

Yoss
07-19-2013, 01:29 PM
I really don't want to drag this on because it's so off topic, but this is the sort of thing I was talking about. You're making a unilateral judgment call about the validity of ideas. If you're going to create a thread that is intended to communicate the entire group's concerns and thoughts, I'd like all supported ideas to be represented...not just those you've been convinced of.
So maybe I should include a "dissenting views" section? I suppose that's not unreasonable. If you all know of a thread where I own the OP and your articulately supported dissenting view is not fairly treated, post in that thread and/or PM me about it. (Most of these threads I am not the owner.)

(Case closed and return to the OP?)

Turtlewing
07-19-2013, 01:37 PM
I'm fine with that solution, if it turned out to be necessary for the survival of the game. I'd prefer it to launch as intended and see how it goes, though. Making decisions matter, not just to the character you're playing but to you as a player, because you may not get to experience the other side of the story would mean that you would work harder for your side, especially if there are global bonuses for everyone of your faction you could work for.

I disagree.

What will happen in the real world is players will just have 2 or more accounts and/or look up the consequences of every decision on a wiki/strategy guide before making it. Neither of those makes the game better in any way.

The sort of person who would get attached to a single keep and not mind never seeing the "other side" will probably never want to make a second keep even if they can, but the sort of person who wants to "see all the endings" will be really annoyed if they can't.

I'll admit that there may be a data volume issue with multiple keeps (since keeps may include your card and equipment pool in addition to your champion/mercenary pool), but I think that could be mitigated by a simple compromise (every account gets 1 keep, and additional keep slots are a microtransation).

Yoss
07-19-2013, 01:37 PM
I'm pretty sure that when he said that it will be impossible to collect them all he was talking about the shear number of them and the amount of time/money that would be required to collect them all as well as your choices in the story mode. There are just too many unknowns at this point to ask for a change. Plus if your a kickstarter backer and your asking for this then you're being pretty hypocritical as you have a good amount of mercs and pve cards already that no one else will be getting.... ever.
Yes, that would be how I would hope he meant it. And in that case, why not let them be tradeable (all exclusives, including KS ones; the view is not hypocritical).


Also consider the fact that sometimes a particular mechanic in a game needs to be in place for a reason. It might not make sense until you actually play the game. Take perma-death, it doesn't work in most games, but it definitely has it's place in others. It is one thing to make suggestions for a games development but it's another thing entirely to continue to plead after they have thought long and hard and made a tough decision.
I plead based on the information I'm given. If there is a reason they are holding to themselves that would change my plea, I hope they will share it.

Gwaer
07-19-2013, 01:41 PM
I disagree.

What will happen in the real world is players will just have 2 or more accounts and/or look up the consequences of every decision on a wiki/strategy guide before making it. Neither of those makes the game better in any way.

The sort of person who would get attached to a single keep and not mind never seeing the "other side" will probably never want to make a second keep even if they can, but the sort of person who wants to "see all the endings" will be really annoyed if they can't.

I'll admit that there may be a data volume issue with multiple keeps (since keeps may include your card and equipment pool in addition to your champion/mercenary pool), but I think that could be mitigated by a simple compromise (every account gets 1 keep, and additional keep slots are a microtransation).
If having to make a second account is suitably annoying the vast majority of people won't bother. If it is trivially easy to do just that, then there's no reason not to go ahead and do it.

It seems like there will be plenty of reasons not to though, depending on how fast your champions level. Also how much you like exclusive mercs that you can't give to your second account, there's a lot of downsides. Which will incentivize people to stick with their primary account, people that don't will likely be outliers.

Yoss
07-19-2013, 02:29 PM
I will respond to posts 122, 123, 125, 127 over in the "one account, one player" thread, since it's slightly off topic to this "can't get every merc" thread.

Banquetto
07-19-2013, 03:25 PM
My experience of the MMO world has taught me that if you restrict anything by character, people will create alts to experience everything.

e.g. in WoW where a character can only have two crafting disciplines, like many others, I have a stable of alts covering every craft in the game.

I have to say, I would be surprised if people did not take exactly the same approach with Hex and create two accounts to experience everything. At which point, it does raise the question of what is being achieved here.

Gorgol
07-19-2013, 03:38 PM
My experience of the MMO world has taught me that if you restrict anything by character, people will create alts to experience everything.

e.g. in WoW where a character can only have two crafting disciplines, like many others, I have a stable of alts covering every craft in the game.

I have to say, I would be surprised if people did not take exactly the same approach with Hex and create two accounts to experience everything. At which point, it does raise the question of what is being achieved here.
I agree, lets allow as many keeps per account as people want. Lets open everything up to everyone.

Turtlewing
07-19-2013, 03:40 PM
My experience of the MMO world has taught me that if you restrict anything by character, people will create alts to experience everything.

e.g. in WoW where a character can only have two crafting disciplines, like many others, I have a stable of alts covering every craft in the game.

I have to say, I would be surprised if people did not take exactly the same approach with Hex and create two accounts to experience everything. At which point, it does raise the question of what is being achieved here.

This is consistent with my experience as well. The other thing that happens when you try to make consequences matter is that strategy guides spoil everything.

I think the "one choice per account" concept might be another one of those "sure you can stack pledges" moment where it sounds really good until faced with the behavior of actual gamers.

Gorgol
07-19-2013, 03:41 PM
This is consistent with my experience as well. The other thing that happens when you try to make consequences matter is that strategy guides spoil everything.

I think the "one choice per account" concept might be another one of those "sure you can stack pledges" moment where it sounds really good until faced with the behavior of actual gamers.
I agree with this also. No choices should have any lasting or meaningful impact. We'll all just look up strategy guides on what leads to what anyway. Everyone should have equal access to everything.

Turtlewing
07-19-2013, 03:46 PM
I agree with this also. No choices should have any lasting or meaningful impact. We'll all just look up strategy guides on what leads to what anyway.

No. it's good for choices to have meaningful impact. That makes it fun to see how the choices I make shape the future of the character I'm playing. I love it when a character has to deal with the choices I made for them.

What's not cool is trying to pretend that I and my character one one entity and that I can't possibly have changed my mind about what might be a fun sort of character to play or decide that a choice I made really juts killed the concept I had going and start over. Especially if you expect your game to last more than a year.

Gorgol
07-19-2013, 03:47 PM
No. it's good for choices to have meaningful impact. That makes it fun to see how the choices I make shape the future of the character I'm playing. I love it when a character has to deal with the choices I made for them.

What's not cool is trying to pretend that I and my character one one entity and that I can't possibly have changed my mind about what might be a fun sort of character to play. Especially if you expect your game to last more than a year.
Your champion going against the wishes of your Keep could be deemed traitorous and thusly you should be exiled from your Keep and Kingdom.
Plus they said there are different things. Some are Account aka Keep bound, and some are things you can do by running a dungeon multiple times. They are mutually exclusive. Factions your Keep decides to join versus options in some dungeons to do X or Y.

Turtlewing
07-19-2013, 03:53 PM
Your champion going against the wishes of your Keep could be deemed traitorous and thusly you should be exiled from your Keep and Kingdom.
Plus they said there are different things. Some are Account aka Keep bound, and some are things you can do by running a dungeon multiple times. They are mutually exclusive. Factions your Keep decides to join versus options in some dungeons to do X or Y.

Sigh...
Keeps in hex are equivilent to charcters in other MMOs based on what we've been told about them. So


No. it's good for choices to have meaningful impact. That makes it fun to see how the choices I make shape the future of the Keep I'm playing. I love it when a Keep has to deal with the choices I made for them.

What's not cool is trying to pretend that I and my Keep are one entity and that I can't possibly have changed my mind about what might be a fun sort of keep to play or decide that a choice I made really juts killed the concept I had going and start over. Especially if you expect your game to last more than a year.

better now?

Gorgol
07-19-2013, 03:57 PM
Sigh...
Keeps in hex are equivilent to charcters in other MMOs based on what we've been told about them. So
better now?
Keeps are "characters in other MMOs" then should we classify champions and Mercenaries?
I view CZE as adding another layer BEYOND characters from MMOs. This is what I view the Keep as. Thus I do not believe we can completely say Keep = character.

Yoss
07-19-2013, 03:58 PM
Other thread please.

jgsugden
07-19-2013, 06:13 PM
I don't MMO right now, but is there anyone out there that has had and made use of every item, ability, etc... in WoW? I see mercs like I see those choices you make when you level a PC. Adding that nice offensive ability at level 23 means you'll never have the level 23 defensive ability, or utility ability... isn't that how it usually works?