PDA

View Full Version : Patch Changes and the Chain



Shaqattaq
11-13-2013, 11:14 AM
by Dan Clark

We are implementing a new feature this week to our engine that will make games play smoother and cut many of the unnecessary actions you are forced to take in a turn. With patch 815, triggered abilities will no go on the the chain and instead will simply resolve.

http://hextcg.com/patch-changes-and-the-chain/

Badger
11-13-2013, 12:51 PM
Sounds like a good idea for sure. Will take a bit of getting used to but it just makes the game a bit different and way faster. As long as there is some sort of animation to show the cards activating and there is a log that you can can view then I think it will be a fantastic change for the game.

Shaqattaq
11-13-2013, 01:03 PM
Thanks. We think it'll be a big improvement as well.

We brought in an extra person to work on card effects, as well as a sound engineer to work on the audio effects for the game. I know that many people's reflexes in video games are trained to recognize audio triggers (like the sound a cooldown effect makes), so we want our game to work both visually and audibly.

ev1lb0b
11-13-2013, 01:06 PM
So Quick Actions basically become Basic Actions on the opponents turn for all activated abilities...am I reading this right? That white card that prevents death and makes your life total 10 would work during the opponents turn if I was on 1 life and they cast Burn but not if a Turreted Wall dealt damage because I wont get the chance to cast it?

Damascus
11-13-2013, 01:08 PM
I think this feature is good, but should be an option (perhaps a checkbox to enable/disable auto priority-pass during play) rather than a static aspect of the game.

The issue is that, while improving the flow of the game in 80% of instances, it is important/useful to be able to react to these triggers the rest of the time, and this adds depth to the game.

Depth is important when catering to a PvP crowd and attempting to make the game into an e-sport (although 'watchability' and game pace totally is too). This is why I think that, in order to keep nuanced play while also making the gameplay smoother, this feature should be implemented with an easily-accessable checkbox or something similar.

Just my two cents

Juve
11-13-2013, 01:28 PM
So Quick Actions basically become Basic Actions on the opponents turn for all activated abilities...am I reading this right? That white card that prevents death and makes your life total 10 would work during the opponents turn if I was on 1 life and they cast Burn but not if a Turreted Wall dealt damage because I wont get the chance to cast it?

u can always play it in draw/prep phase, or if its not how it work right now, CZE could think about moving "at the start" effect after prep,draw step to allow answers

ev1lb0b
11-13-2013, 01:50 PM
u can always play it in draw/prep phase, or if its not how it work right now, CZE could think about moving "at the start" effect after prep,draw step to allow answers

Casting reactive cards during the Prep phase goes some way to making this change bearable (you lose the surprise factor/ability to bluff to some degree which is a big part of TCG strategy) but I can hear the gnashing of pro players teeth around the world at the simplification of the game for the sake of speed/immersion. If this changes becomes set in stone I hope all cards that it affects will get another look and possibly tweaked/changed.

TimeZero
11-13-2013, 02:07 PM
Cards like Blinding Light and Immortality went from good tricks to useless cards. I can't play them on my turn to prevent me from losing to Turreted Wall because the effect is only on my opponent's turn. I can't play them on my opponent's turn because I would have already lost the game by the time I could play either of those cards.

You make a game like MTG OR like Hearthstone/Pokemon for effects and chains, not both.

Don't make dumb decisions like you did with WoW TCG please.

izumo13
11-13-2013, 02:20 PM
The biggest problem I see with this change will be for burn decks. Any burn deck will want to hold off on using their quick-action burn spells for when a creature gets pumped.

For card combos like Righteous Paladin/Adamanthian Scrivener , this isn't a huge deal, because whatever causes the life-gain will likely be something that can be responded to. It's not ideal for timing, but it's passable.

My concern is for when a triggered ability could have multiple potential targets, and the owner will have a choice to make.

Example:

My opponent casts a creature which will give another target creature he controls +X/+X when the creature comes into play, he has two legal targets for this +X/+X bonus.

I have a quick action burn spell which can take out either of the legal targets.

Currently, he chooses a target for the triggered ability, and I burn that target out, 'fizzling' his ability and denying him the pump.

After the change, I won't be able to use that quick action to respond to the pump any longer.

I see where this change is going, any I understand the rationale. I just hope that some consideration is given to allowing people to respond to the targeting of triggered abilities.

Vorsa
11-13-2013, 02:29 PM
I like it! :D

I don't think it's "dumbing down" by any means; don't see anyone could look at card X and say "this card is less tactical now!" without also seeing card Y just became inversely more tactical.

E.g. Prep phase triggered Turreted Wall now has more tactical depth, in this one aspect, than a basic action "deal 1 damage to target creature or champion" activated ability does.

benczi
11-13-2013, 02:34 PM
If triggered abilities no longer get on the chain, playing resources should get on the chain. Or you should remove all triggers that happen when a player plays a resource (I'm looking at you wild root dancer, but not only him).

(edit: the most obvious example: I play a ruby deck, I have 2 burn spells, quick actions, but only enough manna, to use one. My opponent plays a wild root dancer on his turn. and has 2 other troops, lets say two battle hoppers, in play. so what do I do now? from the moment my opponent plays the root dancer from his hand, I have lost the game already, with this change I no longer get any priority before he plays a resource to pump his guys, and then I can't even respond to the pump. there is are more options for me as a ruby champion.)

caffn8d
11-13-2013, 02:46 PM
I think this is a good change from a pacing standpoint. The lost opportunity for some kinds of tricks is outweighed by the improved feel of things overall. A++

chromus
11-13-2013, 03:38 PM
For all the criticism I have of MTGO, the way they have different buttons for passing priority is not one of them. This change is definitely "dumbing down" the game / taking away from the gameplay as there are now less opportunities to be reactive to cards in play (taking a step closer towards the zillion of turn-based card games that Cory had mentioned Hex will not emulate). This change is in my opinion a lazy solution to the 'pass priority' hang-ups. If you want to make the games go faster, give the players the opportunity to skip whole phases/turns (as in F4,F6,etc in MTGO).

escapeRoute
11-13-2013, 04:45 PM
i just lost a lot of the intrest in this game and gained a lot of intrest in hearthstone :/

i hope there is a way to block this thing and respond in the way we are used to... if this becomes not possible.. i think i will seriously give hearthstone a chance...

mudkip
11-13-2013, 04:47 PM
Why not make the "Report bugged game" a prompt AFTER you click "Yes"? That would be much more intuitive.



For all the criticism I have of MTGO, the way they have different buttons for passing priority is not one of them. This change is definitely "dumbing down" the game / taking away from the gameplay as there are now less opportunities to be reactive to cards in play (taking a step closer towards the zillion of turn-based card games that Cory had mentioned Hex will not emulate). This change is in my opinion a lazy solution to the 'pass priority' hang-ups. If you want to make the games go faster, give the players the opportunity to skip whole phases/turns (as in F4,F6,etc in MTGO).

How does it dumb it down? If anything, it makes it does the opposite because you need to think a tiny bit ahead instead of just waiting for something to happen. All of the effects given as example are ones that are consistent and easy to predict.

No one argues that a "Skip to X" shortcut would be good, but even with that option this is an improvement.

SealFate
11-13-2013, 05:06 PM
Why not make the "Report bugged game" a prompt AFTER you click "Yes"? That would be much more intuitive.

That would be 1 more click for everyone who concedes not just the people who had a crashed game.

SealFate
11-13-2013, 05:16 PM
How does it dumb it down? If anything, it makes it does the opposite because you need to think a tiny bit ahead instead of just waiting for something to happen. All of the effects given as example are ones that are consistent and easy to predict.
To say the game gets dumbed down may be a bit harsh.
The power of reactive orientated cards is reduced and the power of threat/support cards increased. A control player can no longer think in terms of kill a troop and negate a triggered support effect with a single card, they are forced to play 1 for 1 (this assumes that the support effect had more than 1 target).

escapeRoute
11-13-2013, 05:34 PM
To say the game gets dumbed down may be a bit harsh.
The power of reactive orientated cards is reduced and the power of threat/support cards increased. A control player can no longer think in terms of kill a troop and negate a triggered support effect with a single card, they are forced to play 1 for 1 (this assumes that the support effect had more than 1 target).

wich is dumbing down a game... everytime u give aggro more strenght and combo/control decks less u dumb down the game for "me dont think me smash" people... they no longer need to be carefull when they play anything.. they just use cards, and thats all

norraist
11-13-2013, 06:32 PM
I come at this as a casual (as in don't have a ton of time to devote) player -- I hate this rule change. The whole point here is to react and counter act to moves, and most of the thrill to me is finding ways to use my deck to trap or surprise my opponent. Not being able to react to triggers cheapens the experience for me - and I'd be less likely to stay long term in a game I don't find challenging.

Please do not misunderstand, I am not intending this as a "my way or I walk" but rather an honest reaction. I *like* complexity in my games. I don't find having to hit pass priority bothersome, and I enjoy a well executed plan by either side.

Kiven
11-13-2013, 06:50 PM
well that was quick action based on player feedback. but yeah, maybe better if devs make as an option the if you want triggered abilities to resolve automatically feature

drewamek
11-13-2013, 07:28 PM
Instead of wiping out the pass priority altogether, can't we get a hybrid system where priority is auto-passed if I do not have a card I can play or activate. A bit more elegant solution imho. :)

Kylo24
11-13-2013, 08:07 PM
I don't post often, but with that said this change worries me. While I think something should be done it's not this.
Maybe have an option to allow this to happen but let it be turned off. This would let newer players enjoy the game more while older ones looking for more interaction have it. I know thats not perfect, but it is what I have.

I have been playing Hearthstone for the last two weeks and the lack of interaction on the opponents turn has been, to put it lightly, less then fun. The main draw for me to Hex was that it had just as much interaction as MTG did, and if you added this in I can see the game being far less enjoyable for me.

TL : DR I don't think this way of doing it is fun.

norraist
11-13-2013, 08:26 PM
Instead of wiping out the pass priority altogether, can't we get a hybrid system where priority is auto-passed if I do not have a card I can play or activate. A bit more elegant solution imho. :)

I'd really like to see this in action. Nice idea.

Ritter
11-13-2013, 08:52 PM
The best option would be to do what some have already suggested, emulating MTGO in their shortcut system. If you wish to speed up gameplay and maintain a high level of interaction, they simply need to do the following:

1) Add in an F8 key; you press this key once at the beginning of the game, and from that point on, if you would ever receive priority and there is no possible play or reaction you could make to the opponents actions, you simply do not get priority. Example: Start of game you hit the F8 key. During a particular turn in that game, if you have sources remaining in your meter, you could theoretically have something in your hand to play, and you would still get priority normally. A turn later, you use all your sources up for the turn, and you have nothing on the board you could possibly activate to impact the reminder of your, or your opponents turn. The game will simply skip any priorities you have since you can literally do nothing, and it is obvious to anyone watching any part of the game. When it comes time to block, of course you get the chance to block, but anything that would require you to make a decision is skipped since you literally have nothing you can do.

The beauty of the F8 key, it skips those button presses that are dumb because it is obvious and apparent that you have no possible action to take, while also doing nothing when you have any possible actions that will impact the game no matter how small.

2) Add in an F6 key; you press it and you forgo your priorities for the remainder of the turn. When the F8 key doesn't do the trick, you can completely give up any actions for the turn by hitting that little F6 key. You have sources available to use and a Secret Lab in play, but you have no intention of using it for ANY reason at all? Why should you have to keep pressing pass priority to continually tell the game over and over that you STILL don't want to use the Lab? Hit F6 and it won't ask you about any of your priorities for the remainder of the turn! Easy problem solved.

Of course, it would be nice if they added in a key that would cancel the use of F6 and F8 incase for some reason you change your mind.

3) If a card like Buccaneer says to return a troop an opponent controls when it enters play, why should it ask you to target a troop if they only control one? Do you have any choice about which troop it targets when there is only one in play it can possibly target? There's no "may" clause, so you gotta target that lonely troop on the other side of the board. Why does the client even bother to ask you to make a choice, when there is NO choice at all? There are probably a ton more cards that have similar unnecessary choices, choices that could be made for you since there is no actual other option to make at certain times in the game. You activate Secret Lab with no cards in hand... why does it bother to ask you which card to discard, when you only have 1 card left in your hand after activating it? This seems like a really really really easy way to save a ton of time, and unnecessary mouse clicks (or space key slams).

TL : DR You should really just read this if you aren't familiar with the mechanics of MTGO, since educating yourself and having an opinion about major aspects of how Hex works is probably relevant to your interests.

Bekkir
11-13-2013, 10:08 PM
Not a fan of the change. Being able to respond to trigger abilities is just as important as being able to respond to spells in general.

MTGO has the option to right click on a card during a game and select something similar to "always yield to abilities from this card". Dont want to click every time a root dancer triggers? Problem solved; without having to change game mechanics.

Martofski
11-14-2013, 01:24 AM
Wanted to chime in with examples from MODO but the guys above beat me to it, so I'll just +1 them. This is a very bad change, don't do it. It would be fine as an option (hotkey, popup menu, gesture, w/e), not as game mechanic.

nikareijii
11-14-2013, 01:42 AM
Removing triggers from stack is the worst decision you even possibly can made.
Removing the whole stack engine from the game will be even better then removing triggers, because it saves consistancy of gaming process.
Now you literally say: "we were thinking of making game better then MTG and MTGO especially, but then decided to make game that is strictly worse and have weaker mathematical apparatus then it".
Please, stop shooting your own leg.

Aruken
11-14-2013, 02:30 AM
For all the criticism I have of MTGO, the way they have different buttons for passing priority is not one of them. This change is definitely "dumbing down" the game / taking away from the gameplay as there are now less opportunities to be reactive to cards in play (taking a step closer towards the zillion of turn-based card games that Cory had mentioned Hex will not emulate). This change is in my opinion a lazy solution to the 'pass priority' hang-ups. If you want to make the games go faster, give the players the opportunity to skip whole phases/turns (as in F4,F6,etc in MTGO).

Agreed. They might as well go all the way and go the Heartstone way while they are at it. This is a poor decision that does not bring anything good on the table.

escapeRoute
11-14-2013, 06:22 AM
first gameforge, now this... it seems like they have done a brainstorming session with the starting question being "whats the best way to sabotate this game?" :/

mcht
11-14-2013, 06:25 AM
this change is horrible, please dont do it :(

escapeRoute
11-14-2013, 07:46 AM
*post edit* i think i just overeacted... im still not totally sold bout this change but i will at least give it a try...

LNQ
11-14-2013, 08:38 AM
I believe this change could be really good. Three things that are important to me regarding stacks considering the new system:

1) Activated abilities should still go into the stack just like cards do, only automatic triggers don't

2) When playing a card that has "on play, give one creature XXX" or "on play, sacrifice X troops", the target for these effects should have to be declared before your opponent decides on their response. For example, if a card deals X damage to a troop when entering play, the player should have to select which troop they target so that the opponent can react by buffing that troop so it survives. Otherwise the reacting player is in such a huge disadvantage that balance of cards would have to be completely reassessed, since they would have to do a lot of things just to narrow their opponents choices, instead of actually countering anything.

3) When playing resources, opponent should have a chance to act if there are any effects triggering (wild root dancer) due to the resource being played. Otherwise gaining threshold effects should be completely reconsidered as those would be uncounterable and unpredictable.

Those three points are what I'm concerned about. But I definitely like the idea of streamlining the game a bit to somewhere between Hearthstone and MTG.

Blackhoof
11-14-2013, 09:08 AM
Or they can implement "flash"(or "immediate" or any other name) effects which does not go into stack.

For example, Surge Mechanism and Bottled Vitae may have flash activated abilities while Volcannon is not. And Cerebral Fulmination can have a flash trigger while Righteous Paladin not.

This may be a bit too complicated but it's more flexible and deep than changes in this patch. And this ability opens even more design space: CZE can make 2 similar cards one with flash trigger and one with common trigger.

malloc31
11-14-2013, 11:04 AM
I think this change is a move in the right direction (I think it got annoying playing games after a while and something had to be done to eliminate some passing). But I would much rather see a system where you can set it to automatically pass on each card for the rest of the game, but you also had the option for it not to, like MTGO. ie some one plays a turreted wall, you click on the turreted wall and get the option of always pass to the turreted wall effect or to not pass to it automatically. (Because if it is your wall and killing your opponent you will probably always want to pass on it, but if it is targeting you you may not want to so you can respond.) And it can be changed later in the game so if you draw a card you may want to use in response to it you can then change it so it can be. I also agree that if you have no options you should not have to pass, I don't care that it removes bluffing, I feel that the speed up would be worth it.

Paradigm
11-14-2013, 11:13 AM
I understand why CZE made this decision, but as a lover of strategic card games and "Art of war" style tactics, I absolutely hate this. I cant count the times i've burned/murdered/removal'd cards during my opponents turn to ruin their strategy/plans. Here are some of the cards that this happens to REGULARLY.

•wild root dancer - Opponent plays a shard, remove the target befpre it gets buffed.
•Righteous paladin - Opponent gains life, remove paladin before he gets bigger.
•turreted wall - Respond during start of turn to destroy it. (This is mostly midgames, but see below)
•war Machinist - If you feel like your opponent is setting up a chain of robot factories or some such, remove him on the stack.
•incubation slave - Your opponent has 6 resources and you can't deal with the spiders? Kill him when he adds another egg.
•shin'hare eulogist - Kill him on the stack AFTER your opponent wasted a bunch of shin'hare trying to get him bigger BEFORE he does.
•frost wizard - Your opponent attacks thinking one of his dudes will be protected. Not today.

Down the line this could mean really big unstoppable plays from cards like:

•Jadim - No chance to use damage based removal to kill him before he pumps.
•Void marauder - Opponent played a spell? Guess what you can do about all those other spells he's about to play? Nothing.
•Eurig the Robomancer - Making warbots you can't prevent during your opponents turn.
•Master Theory crafter - Same as above.
•Lady Cassandra - No tricking your opponent into thinking they'll gain enough life to survive next turn.
•Urunaz - No responding to his ability to potentially save you.

I know a lot of people will say "Well why not just do that during your end step? That's a perfectly valid question. There are many answers to that, of which I'm sure many people can supply here. A few I am going to give are thus:

“He who is prudent and lies in wait for an enemy who is not, will be victorious.”

•Mind games or “All warfare is based on deception.” - Forcing your opponent to suddenly deal with a new situation and ruining their strategy can put them on edge and cause them to make mistakes.
• Wasting their resources or “Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak .” - When your opponent makes a play and uses resources to do so, whether it's sacrificing troops or spending their resource pool or playing cards they would have otherwise saved and you have a surgically timed counter for them, it can be game ending.
•Useless cards or “Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.”
As others have mentioned, this change makes a few cards COMPLETELY USELESS in specific situations. Cards should almost never be useless BECAUSE OF THE RULES. If other cards make cards useless, that's just good tactics. When the game makes cards useless, there is a problem. Specifically the cards being referred to here are "Immortality" and "Blinding light" Though I'm sure there will be others down the line.

I feel that the last quote I gave was the most importart. I feel that what is happening here is tactics without strategy, and if things like this persist, well, you can read.

“Engage people with what they expect; it is what they are able to discern and confirms their projections. It settles them into predictable patterns of response, occupying their minds while you wait for the extraordinary moment — that which they cannot anticipate.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

I hope that we are able to find a ground in which all parties are satisfied. I understand this might not happen but this rules change ahs clearly upset as many patrons as it has pleased. I hope this rules change will be open for change, or at minimum, serious discussion for alteration.

TL;DR: I take card games too seriously.

LNQ
11-14-2013, 11:22 AM
Paradigm, you should realize that cards could and likely would be adjusted to take into account the rule changes.

Paradigm
11-14-2013, 11:42 AM
Paradigm, you should realize that cards could and likely would be adjusted to take into account the rule changes.

I do realize that and thank you for your reply. If you recall, I specifically said
I hope that we are able to find a ground in which all parties are satisfied.

If that ground happens to be the cards changing, then so be it. However, it seems like changing many cards would be tedious and impractical from both an implementation and coding point of view.

BlackRoger
11-14-2013, 01:34 PM
Example:

My opponent casts a creature which will give another target creature he controls +X/+X when the creature comes into play, he has two legal targets for this +X/+X bonus.

After the change, I won't be able to use that quick action to respond to the pump any longer.




Izumo, I haven't played the alpha, but wouldn't you still be able to see what the spell is targeting? why wouldn't you be able to kill the right creature?
If not, then I'm sure its somewhere on CZE's todo list.

Shadowelf
11-14-2013, 01:56 PM
Izumo, I haven't played the alpha, but wouldn't you still be able to see what the spell is targeting? why wouldn't you be able to kill the right creature?
If not, then I'm sure its somewhere on CZE's todo list.

You won't be able to kill the right creature because you can't respond to the +1/+1 trigger;

Pre patch: you cast a creature which applies a +1/+1 effect to another creature when it comes into play; there are 2 creatures on your side of the board A and B. You choose creature A to buff, and opponent can respond by killing it, therefore the +1/+1 buff is effectively wasted

After patch: you cast the creature that applies the +1/+1 buff, opponent is given the chance to respond before the +1/+1 buff is applied, so he kills creature A and you buff creature B

LNQ
11-14-2013, 02:59 PM
This is why on play triggers should have to be targeted before the opponent reacts, not after.

Shaqattaq
11-14-2013, 04:06 PM
*post edit* i think i just overeacted... im still not totally sold bout this change but i will at least give it a try...

That's all we're asking. That people just give it a fair shot, think about it for a few days, and then give us their opinion.

And for all the examples of times something happened when they are not able to respond, please remember that this is true when you're on the other side of the table. Everybody's playing by the same set of rules and making decisions, evaluations within the context of those rules.

mudkip
11-14-2013, 06:29 PM
And for all the examples of times something happened when they are not able to respond, please remember that this is true when you're on the other side of the table. Everybody's playing by the same set of rules and making decisions, evaluations within the context of those rules.

This. There's been so much whinging about how people will be hard done by with this change - they never consider when they're on the other side.

I hope CZE continue to go with their vision and ignore the vocal minority who are offended by change.

Errantsquire
11-14-2013, 07:43 PM
The more I think about this the more I don't like it. Yes it's annoying to have to cede actions through multiple triggers which can make you miss combat or your second main phase however I feel like the solution proposed is throwing the baby out with the bath water. I truly believe that stacked/chained triggered abilities are a necessary evil and my solution would be the implementation of 2 things.

First - I would implement a cede all actions until the end of the turn button (which was necessary anyway). This would simply mean that you would automatically pass priority whenever priority was passed to you by your opponent. It's the same as saying "go" if it's your turn or "do whatever you want to do" on your opponents turn.

Second - I would implement a cede all actions on the current stack/chain. This would fix the problem that they are currently tackling in a much more elegant way. In the case of playing something like "Runts of the Litter" with an "Adamanthian Scrivener" in play your opponent could simply cede all the health gain triggers. This would mean that you wouldn't have to cede all the turn actions to get on with the triggers while still leaving you open to respond after the event.

This is a really important issue to me because I don't feel that triggered abilities should ever be moved into the realm of "State Based Effects." For those of you that are not familiar with "State Based Effects" these are basically effects that do not use the stack. For some things this cleans up the game and makes for a better play experience, but in the case of triggered abilities I would argue that this dumbs down the game and moves it toward non-reactive card games like Hearthstone, Sol Forge, and Yu-Gi-Oh! which is not a place that I'd like to be in.

Obviously I feel pretty strongly about this subject and will be looking into it more deeply as I get the time. If you could care less about it then I'd just let it ride and see what happens however if you're like me and have strong feelings for either side of the issue make sure to have your voice heard by posting here or on the Cryptozoic Forums. I'm defiantly going to bring this up and hopefully it will be an open topic on the HexTCGPro cast tonight (8pm central).

wurtil
11-14-2013, 09:02 PM
And for all the examples of times something happened when they are not able to respond, please remember that this is true when you're on the other side of the table. Everybody's playing by the same set of rules and making decisions, evaluations within the context of those rules.

This is completely true of Hearthstone as well, but I would not claim that it means that game has interesting strategy in it.

Seriously, had I known you wanted to create a "stack-less" game in the vein of dozens of other TCGs both physical and digital, I'm not sure I would have backed for $1 let alone close to the $1000 that I did. What looked to set HEX apart to me was that it took the complexity of Magic and let it roam in the digital space where even more interesting ideas were possible. I've been pitching this to everyone I can as "MTG that is doing digital right" and getting a lot of positive response to that, but I don't know what game you are trying to be now with this change...

MugenMusou
11-14-2013, 09:10 PM
May be I'm missing something here, but as long as they keep followings for potential interruption, I think we are still ok without any significant sacrifice.

1. Have a prep phase stop to be before at the beginning of turn ability activation.

This will allow players to still avoid the 1 damage from the trigger at the beginning of turn.

2. Have a summon interrupt

All those upon summoning trigger thing can be interrupted that point. Obviously, now the player have to understand that there will be cascades of effects going down to Rituous Paladine, so as soon as the opponent's summon a creature before it resolves, you should try kill the rituous paladine if that;s what you intended, or perhaps kill the healing guy so health gain won't even take place i.e. rituous paladine wont get +1/1. You just now have to make the decision right when new creature is summoned.

I think it is unnessary to pass priority 2-3 times for single event triggering cascade effect. It's should be a player figuring out that and counter it appropriately. But if this whole change takes away the option completely, then I think it takes away the flexibility, potential, and depth of the HEX that is setting apart from many other mobile dTCG.

Norah
11-14-2013, 10:37 PM
Don't like the trigger change. Design space is lost. Options are fewer. Creature abilities become much stronger than similar actions, possibly leading to meta dominated by zerg decks due to power disparity between actions and creature abilities (Squirrel Titan, Wild Root, etc.). Guessing what my opponent will do with a trigger before I even know if the trigger will go off (Wild Root) is a very unfun mechanic.

Need a UI toggle for pass all priorities this turn, ignore all priority requests for this trigger, etc.

Paradigm
11-14-2013, 11:23 PM
This is completely true of Hearthstone as well, but I would not claim that it means that game has interesting strategy in it.

Seriously, had I known you wanted to create a "stack-less" game in the vein of dozens of other TCGs both physical and digital, I'm not sure I would have backed for $1 let alone close to the $1000 that I did. What looked to set HEX apart to me was that it took the complexity of Magic and let it roam in the digital space where even more interesting ideas were possible.

Exactly this. I played yu-gi-oh at a very competitive level for years and it never quite did what M:tG did for me, tactically. I have been playing for hours since this change and every time a triggered ability activates I am left with a bitter taste in my mouth.


This. There's been so much whinging about how people will be hard done by with this change - they never consider when they're on the other side.


First of all, many of the people voicing their opinions or "whining" as you put it, are highly experienced card players with decades or more of experience under their belt. It is both arrogant and rude of you to assume we're only complaining because "When it affects us." Instead many of us are looking at the game as a whole. This kind of "dumbing down" of the game, as others have put it, is clearly more than just a slight annoyance. If you cannot see, or attempt to see, things from our point of view I ask that you try not to insult those of use that oppose your view.

I have given this change a chance and I continue to disagree with it heavily.

Avignon
11-14-2013, 11:35 PM
From playing last night, I have to say the change is good. Less times I have to press that darn pass priority the better. I know people are like "oh but in this circumstance, if I have this and that, and then they do that, I can respond with this". Srs I would rather the game go faster 5% of the time and lose that 1 ultra situational priority window once every 3 years.

Please also skip the "rage" priority window. Its also not required.

Cazychel
11-15-2013, 03:13 AM
I'm not in the Alpha yet, but in pure theory this does not sound good. First of all I come from M:tG obviously, but I don't want Hex to become a carbon copy of that. Still, removing reactivity from the game and in many situations forcing players to act during their own turn, because reacting is not as useful as before, does not enhance the depth of playing.

I would rather have a flexible and if necessary slightly slower game, than either play a deck of simply unstoppable triggers with no interactivity (it would be rather mindless to drop cards on the table and be certain, what happens) or play against such a deck.
To some degree this is defeating the purpose of playing a TCG.

Many people have posted better solutions to this issue already, so I won't repeat them.

Khendral
11-15-2013, 04:39 AM
After a bunch of games and thinking about it for a long while, I don't like the chain change, for several reasons:

1.- It is inconsistent. Why triggered abilities and not activated abilities? What's the difference between a triggered ability (Prime Wild Orb of Empowerment) and a replacement effect (Inspire) now?

2.- It feels sloppy. I can't shrug off the feeling that, had there been no priority bugs, this would have never been discussed, let alone implemented. I was under the impression that, by the time kickstarter launched you had a well-thought, fine-tuned, solid game that needed to be 'digitalized', yet now you want to make such a modification? This isn't card tuning (like say, having escalation void the card instead of shuffling it back), this is a major game change.

3.- *Almost* worthless. I mean, as crappy as the MTGO client is, I don't remember ever feeling like I was 'clicking too much' (and Magic has more triggered abilities on average). After Auto-Yield and other shortcuts MTGO-style (F2, F5, F6) are implemented, how many clicks will this change prevent during a normal game? 5-10 over a 10-15 minutes game?

4.- It affects gameplay. I'm not talking about 'Immortality won't save me from Inferno anymore', or 'I can't respond to Howling Brave get-a-wild-threshold triggered anymore', I'm talking about less interaction for both players. You can't answer to your own triggers to pump/blink/whatever, and neither can your opponent. Does it affect every player equally? Yes, of course it does. Every change you make will affect everyone (maybe more or less depending on each player's deckbuilding preferences), but that doesn't mean it makes the game more interesting. And sure, it won't happen more than a couple of times per game, but it is far more relevant than clicking.
5.- It sets a terrifying precedent. How many such changes can we expect from now on?

As usual, that's just my 0.02 plat. Undoubtly there's people who like this change, I'm just not one of them.

Userrr_Friendly
11-15-2013, 06:53 AM
I understand why CZE made this decision, but as a lover of strategic card games and "Art of war" style tactics, I absolutely hate this. I cant count the times i've burned/murdered/removal'd cards during my opponents turn to ruin their strategy/plans. Here are some of the cards that this happens to REGULARLY.

•wild root dancer - Opponent plays a shard, remove the target befpre it gets buffed.
•Righteous paladin - Opponent gains life, remove paladin before he gets bigger.
•turreted wall - Respond during start of turn to destroy it. (This is mostly midgames, but see below)
•war Machinist - If you feel like your opponent is setting up a chain of robot factories or some such, remove him on the stack.
•incubation slave - Your opponent has 6 resources and you can't deal with the spiders? Kill him when he adds another egg.
•shin'hare eulogist - Kill him on the stack AFTER your opponent wasted a bunch of shin'hare trying to get him bigger BEFORE he does.
•frost wizard - Your opponent attacks thinking one of his dudes will be protected. Not today.

Down the line this could mean really big unstoppable plays from cards like:

•Jadim - No chance to use damage based removal to kill him before he pumps.
•Void marauder - Opponent played a spell? Guess what you can do about all those other spells he's about to play? Nothing.
•Eurig the Robomancer - Making warbots you can't prevent during your opponents turn.
•Master Theory crafter - Same as above.
•Lady Cassandra - No tricking your opponent into thinking they'll gain enough life to survive next turn.
•Urunaz - No responding to his ability to potentially save you.

I know a lot of people will say "Well why not just do that during your end step? That's a perfectly valid question. There are many answers to that, of which I'm sure many people can supply here. A few I am going to give are thus:

“He who is prudent and lies in wait for an enemy who is not, will be victorious.”

•Mind games or “All warfare is based on deception.” - Forcing your opponent to suddenly deal with a new situation and ruining their strategy can put them on edge and cause them to make mistakes.
• Wasting their resources or “Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak .” - When your opponent makes a play and uses resources to do so, whether it's sacrificing troops or spending their resource pool or playing cards they would have otherwise saved and you have a surgically timed counter for them, it can be game ending.
•Useless cards or “Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.”
As others have mentioned, this change makes a few cards COMPLETELY USELESS in specific situations. Cards should almost never be useless BECAUSE OF THE RULES. If other cards make cards useless, that's just good tactics. When the game makes cards useless, there is a problem. Specifically the cards being referred to here are "Immortality" and "Blinding light" Though I'm sure there will be others down the line.

I Couldn't agree more with the above post.
What surprises me is that CZE is about to make such a HUGE change in the game when half of the backers are not even invited in Alpha yet, and unless they are hardcore TCG games they cannot have a clear opinion on the matter.
In my opinion removing triggered abilities from the chain is a bad and lazy way to "speed up" the game. i really hope they think twice about it

SalamanderRogue
11-15-2013, 08:31 AM
I don't like it. Anything that takes away depth is a negative in my opinion.

DocX
11-15-2013, 08:44 AM
I think it smooths out the game play experience and have enjoyed my Shin'hare and Robot/Dwarf decks much more since the change. +1 CZE.

Shaqattaq
11-15-2013, 12:09 PM
I Couldn't agree more with the above post.
What surprises me is that CZE is about to make such a HUGE change in the game when half of the backers are not even invited in Alpha yet, and unless they are hardcore TCG games they cannot have a clear opinion on the matter.
In my opinion removing triggered abilities from the chain is a bad and lazy way to "speed up" the game. i really hope they think twice about it

This is what alpha is for, to test changes to the game that could be very beneficial to the game.

Additionally, we want people to give us feedback, but forums are representative of one specific group of people. We want opinions of hardcore TCG players, sure, but we have to consider the entire playerbase's experiences.

Khendral
11-15-2013, 12:59 PM
This is what alpha is for, to test changes to the game that could be very beneficial to the game.

Additionally, we want people to give us feedback, but forums are representative of one specific group of people. We want opinions of hardcore TCG players, sure, but we have to consider the entire playerbase's experiences.

Out of curiosity, how do you get feedback from the entire playerbase's experiences? Are you going to send some kind of survey to every backer?

Tathel
11-15-2013, 01:10 PM
If response to triggered abilities is removed it will probably significantly remove game complexity surrounding triggered abilities, in what i believe is a bad way. This may be a 'I enjoy magic' bias

I do admit that a large % of the time there is no response to a trigger or the response/trigger order have little effect on the outcome. Often in cases where it matters you might be able to play your quick action in response to what causes the trigger, during the phase before or after.

I don't think this change would make me dislike the game but i do think it causes a lot more potential for infinite or uninterruptible combos. Some situations where 1 triggered ability triggers another, or two different abilities trigger off of an occurrence, could be annoying if in magic you would have been able to take advantage of stack ordering. Or are we still ordering triggers in these cases?

Come to think of it if triggers don't use the stack and you get 3 or 4 things trigger it could be very complicated to predict the outcome ( I assume triggers would follow a layer system of event occurrence?)

And if the active player is choosing trigger resolution order it seems odd to not allow response.


I think the more appropriate solution is add an always yield to trigger toggle

The_Shatner
11-15-2013, 01:11 PM
I understand if there are implementation-specific limitations (or if dev resources are simply too limited), but having a card-by-card option to "suppress triggers from this source" would be appreciated. Or in addition to the pass-priority button, have an "auto-pass priority from this source" or "auto-pass priority for triggers similar to this" next to it. A way to later on disable the auto-pass, perhaps by examining the card you opted to auto-pass on, would be nice but not necessary; a global "disable all auto-passes" would be just fine. Users then just re-auto-pass sources as desired.

I'm aware this is more-or-less identical to how MTGO handles this situation; but I believe this strikes a good balance between removing needless priority passes (only have to experience each priority pass once) and staying true to the boardstate. I would say its worth the effort to at least allow players to source-by-source remove triggered abilities from offering priority.

Edit: I shouldn't make it sound like removing priority from triggered abilities means you are disallowing valid actions; that's just a design choice for the game, and not necessarily a bad one just different. Not being able to respond to triggered abilities does not remove any complexity from the game, it in fact adds a new layer of it. One essentially has a source of abilities that all have 'split second'. Personally I think being able to respond to triggered abilities is more intuitive but that does necessitate some way to trim away excess clicks.

Edit2: Reminds me of how removing combat damage from the stack was seen as removing complexity (which technically it was) but it actually opened up strategic decisions (do I sacrifice my creature or do I let it deal damage & die) and made the game, debatably I admit, more intuitive. Removing the ability to respond to triggered abilities seems similar, but in this case I feel would be un-intuitive. Perhaps the improvement in the digital experience is worth the unintuitiveness.

Shaqattaq
11-15-2013, 01:12 PM
Out of curiosity, how do you get feedback from the entire playerbase's experiences? Are you going to send some kind of survey to every backer?

We have plenty of observational information from Gen Con with players of ranging skillsets, experiences. We also have people who come in and play HEX. And I can ask engineers to pull up some data now (with much more data in the future).

Redbeastmage
11-15-2013, 01:54 PM
Not a big fan of this change. Really hurts instant burn spells and removal for targeted triggers. If Crypto isn't willing to reverse this, I hope at least for the sake of things, we can get a pre-trigger start of turn priority exchange. A single one for any quick actions we want to do at the start of the turn.

bootlace
11-15-2013, 03:42 PM
Wow, are you kidding me?! I cant believe such a huge game-changing announcement was made so suddenly, in such a non-chalant way, without any sort of proper feedback from the community. Cory himself has said how important reactive play is and went as far as calling games that didn't have such qualities as just a 'card game' not a TCG. So is Hex just a card game now?

I also have an issue with the attempted justification by Shaqattaq in this thread. This is NOT what the original community wanted, it's not what was promised. You promised a deep, strategic, hardcore TCG and already you're selling us out.

You can't simply change such a core aspect midway through the development because a few Hearthstone players came over and are whining about some Alpha build. If you're basing game direction based on the whims of newbies card gamers who don't really know what they're talking about then boy are we in trouble.

It's insincere to claim that such a change could be beneficial to a serious TCG. This has NEVER been a problem in MTGO even with the complex infinite combos that game has. If you had come out and said you are technically unable to do what MTGO has done with auto yield priority then I would have had infinite more understanding. But to claim that the majority of players want this change based on some anecdotal 'evidence' is simply absurd. You currently have no clean solution to present to the problem so I dont even know what kind of 'data' you would pull up.

Honestly I can't believe Cory allowed this to happen, and I have definitely lost a lot of trust and confidence in this team and project. To leave this matter on a constructive note, here is an alternate way to get around the 'annoyance' of having to deal with triggered abilities:

-Add a 3 second timer bar to triggers and if within that time the player doesn't press a button then the ability will resolve.

Of course just having players right click on a trigger and setting to auto-yield is the simplest solution. If this is a technical issue Im sure many will be up for a limited time KS funding campaign to raise money to hire someone able to get this in the game. You can call this tier the "Trigger Happy" pledge.

Ertzi
11-15-2013, 04:08 PM
I think this change would be a monumental mistake if it remained in the final version. Chain mechanics and intricacies are an integral part of a robust TCG. Mastering them is one of the things that separates great players from novices. It takes a long time to learn all the sophisticated interactions in a complex chain, and I am still learning some of them. But I like this sort of complexity.

You can sugar coat this as much as you like, but this is still dumbing down the game. Everything that removes options and depth is. I happen to like these things. I am also a very patient and reactive player and I feel this change is a direct attack on players that share this type. I get a feeling that this is an effort to make the game more mainstream and approachable to players new to TCGs. I believe it is at the cost of us TCG veterans though.

Nothing would prevent me from playing HEX because of the PvE content, but sadly for the first time I am glad I didn't get the chance to throw huge chunks of money at it during the Kickstarter campaign. This is a worrying direction indeed. I do not consider this a minor change, but a giant one.

My solution: make as many changes as you want to the core gameplay, but make all of them an option only. I want to be able to play the slower, trigger-heavy games against the AI if I want. You can make this an option in PvP games as well. Two different queues. Complex and simplified triggers. I know which one I would be in.

Ertzi
11-15-2013, 04:14 PM
If this is a technical issue Im sure many will be up for a limited time KS funding campaign to raise money to hire someone able to get this in the game. You can call this tier the "Trigger Happy" pledge.

I'm also ready to put my money where my mouth is. If this is indeed a technical issue, I am willing to donate more money to leave the triggers as they were. I feel that strongly about this. Good idea, bootlace.

negativeZer0
11-15-2013, 06:34 PM
NO,

There's so many better solutions then this, ones that don't fundamentally change the game.
This is the easiest and laziest way to fix a minor issue which will permanently change the game.

Have a casual mode, used in all un-ranked games where the game will auto skip anytime the player does not have the ability to react. Then in ranked games everything should stay the way it was before this proposed change.

This solves both problems, 1 casual games that are barely effected by the proposed change still gain benefit but high ranked competitive games that can at times be highly effected by this change don't get screwed.

Also we have to think of the long term impacts of this change.
This change will have an impact on all future cards and sets.
It is a bad idea.

TimeZero
11-15-2013, 10:57 PM
From playing last night, I have to say the change is good. Less times I have to press that darn pass priority the better. I know people are like "oh but in this circumstance, if I have this and that, and then they do that, I can respond with this". Srs I would rather the game go faster 5% of the time and lose that 1 ultra situational priority window once every 3 years.

Please also skip the "rage" priority window. Its also not required.

Tell me more about "ultra-situational priority window" when it will lose you a game in the finals of a big money tournament...can't wait to hear how it's so good games are dumbed down and 5% faster...

If you want games to go faster, it's not by dumbing down the game heavily you'll get it right. There 3 simple solutions to implement like MTGO:

1- Button press (any F key would do it) to pass priority for everything on the chain
2- Button press to pass priority for the rest of the turn
3- Button press to CANCEL any of the 2 options above (you see something can be done in the middle of it, cancel auto-pass priority)
4- Right-click on a specific card and select an option to auto-pass priority for that card's effect (can toggled off by right-clicking and selecting the option off)

Simple solutions that keep the game's complexity without pressing spacebar 72 times per turn.

If HEX wants to survive and be the leading force of DCGs, it's not by trying to be like Hearthstone and beat Hearthstone. It's by being different and more complex they will do it.

The_Shatner
11-15-2013, 11:30 PM
Disallowing responding to triggered abilities does not necessarily "dumb the game down" simply because it takes away options. Just like how disallowing responding to combat damage did not "dumb down" Magic (Despite how people objected to that, as well).

You also cannot "lose a game" because of this change. This is proposing a change to the rules. I personally find disallowing responding to triggered actions counter-intuitive; but I can see where the benefit (general game flow) may be worth the cost (potentially counter-intuitive trigger handling).

Ertzi
11-16-2013, 01:37 AM
Just one more thing, then I have said all I need to about this subject.

I personally fell in love with HEX because it has all the complex, slow-paced features of a proper, impressive card game, only with insane amount of added potential. This is not what I signed up for. I can accept Gameforge and delays (even months and years if need be), as then I would still get the product I imagined. But this? Now you are treading on my dreams. This would also set a dangerous precedent, as someone already mentioned. If CZE is capable of tinkering with such core gameplay features, who knows how much the game will change before launch. Again, I want the game that was introduced on KS, not some diluted version to please the masses.

What's next? Removing of resources entirely because they are a drag and not everyone can optimize them in a deck immediately? Again, it's more the idea of changing such an integral part of the game I am against than the change itself. Stick to your guns, CZE. HEX will be different from all the other digital card games out there. Please do not do this.

Malakili
11-16-2013, 06:42 AM
While I don't necessarily think we are on a slippery slope, I just think this is a plain bad idea. There are SO MANY ways to get around this without fundamentally changing the way in which triggers work in the game. Magic Online does it well, as many have noted. Furthermore, I think they could really tighten up the animations for putting things on the stack - a great deal more time is spent because of that animation which puts it there than because people have to hit their space bar.

escapeRoute
11-16-2013, 12:21 PM
This is what alpha is for, to test changes to the game that could be very beneficial to the game.

Additionally, we want people to give us feedback, but forums are representative of one specific group of people. We want opinions of hardcore TCG players, sure, but we have to consider the entire playerbase's experiences.

dont make the nge error made by soe with star wars galaxies... u will NEVER appeal to the hearthstone players... the casual gamers are allready set on heartstone and u wont get em by changing ur game, but u may and will loose ur community in the process...

u just cant compete with blizzard on theyr ground as much as soe was not able to, dont make the same mistakes

MugenMusou
11-16-2013, 02:24 PM
After playing with new system for a little, and reading posts here, I am still torn with this change.

The tempo is certainly better, and I did actually wrote an article way before HEX come out how instance type mechanics may create a potential problem in mobile platform for the exact reason why Cryptozoic is trying this change.

However, it does certainly lose the potential depth of the game. HEX will still be deeper and more flexible than the other mobile platform TCG, but not to the degree of the game like Magic.

Just as a thought, how about following ways to solve "pass priority" issue without losing flexiblity?

1. Default timer/auto pass setting

By default, set to automatic pass of ability. So if one wants to counter ability they have to set as stop point. If Cryptozoic's argument is correct, most people would not check this back.

Alternatively, set short timer that automatically passes. So rather than players click "pass priority", they have to "stop" to gain priority; otherwise, after a few seconds automatically passes.

2. Champion's ability

Perhaps making it as Champion's ability, which is permanently on when you choose the champion. Basically with it, you can counter the ability but other champion's won't let you.

3. Separate ability types

Make certain ability's not countable, but others countable by creating a new keyword e.g. [interruptable]

4. Start phase stop for all

It is already mostly implemented, but add a stop to Prep phase before any "beginning of turn" effect take place, and also stop with resource card play, or any other event initiation trigger.

Basically, we won't see the each trigger ability entering into chain with this approach but rather it is players who have to see that such event will immediately happen if you pass the priority. But you still have the option to counter as before.

For example, one have Wild dancer you can still counter its ability as you will now get chance to counter the resource card play. Similarly, by allowing stop before "start of turn" event trigger, we can still counter other things.

Personally #1 with "stop priority" rather than "pass priority" approach is the best. So it won't lose any flexibility of the game.

Also, I have put an article up on my blog to address 3 scenarios (I'm sure there are more) that current change can potentially affect.

http://houshasen.wordpress.com/2013/11/17/%E3%80%90hex%E3%80%91evolution-or-regression-change-in-chain-mechanics/

DreamPuppet
11-17-2013, 03:29 AM
Add me to the side of "not wanting to lose the complexity" side of the argument. The only thing i thought that was missing from the game (were as others have said) commands like magic online has to pass priority for rest of turns, cancelling said pass, and ability to just click on the cards and allow pass when you know you'll never want to stop.

The appeal of HEX in the first place for me was that it was close enough to magic and that i could get into it on the ground floor and not after the game was out 20yrs.

Cazychel
11-17-2013, 04:02 AM
One other thing: In some cases this change might not even speed up the game at all, because one of the players still has to react to the trigger, anyway. Cards like Giant Corpse Fly, The Mushwocky, Giant Squirrel Titan, Sniper of Gawaine etc. still need reaction from at least one player and the time to click "pass priority" is rather negligible.

Admittedly, most of the time it will not be important to react to some trigger. But once the game is streamlined, will there be any hold up from these unneccesarry triggers, really? Or will there be a way to auto-pass, anyway? If the latter is true, then this decision to change the game mechanics is not to streamline the gameplay experience anymore, unless you are indeed unable to do otherwise, but to fundamentally change some core mechanic of the game: reactivity.

The real question many have asked before is: Is this "dumbing down" the game?
In many cases: No, it's not "dumbing down" the game, it merely forces players to react one step earlier, like with the "Volcannon" and "Immortality" example. You have to play cards in response to the card itself rather than the trigger, or at the end of your turn rather in reaction to the trigger. However, this can still make for a rather frustrating game experience, because it is very unforgiving, when you make errors, i.e. you forget to play the card that saves/helps you "far" in advance.

But it also forces you to handle unaccessible information more times, mostly anticipating the opponents intention in playing a certain card and not knowing what the trigger will do exactly. More accurately you have no possible way of figuring it out, and the opponent has the double advantage. This will lead to a form of overcautious overreaction to account for as many possibilities as you can, e.g. when your opponent drops a "Giant Squirrel Titan" or a "Sniper of Gawaine" you do not power up the targeted troop (because you can't), but rather as many troops as possible (or at least as many, as you want to save). In effect this also leads to squandering resources in defensive actions more and being really cost-efficient in offensive ones.
On the other side of the table, this makes for very easy choices: A "Giant Squirrel Titan" will always take down a troop safely and survive, as long as the opponent can't buff them all. And you have the double advantage.
Here, we already are in "dumbing down the game" terretory. Making decisions easier for one player and harder to counteract by the other is exactly that.

So in short. What will this change lead to (in my eyes)?

1. A more unforgiving and subsequently more frustrating game experience.
2. In defense: Overcautious overreation or inaction; in offense: More simple decisions and the double advantage.

And the question is: What is more desireable?

Less reactivity and flexibility for a more streamlined experience (which might not even be true anymore, if gameplay features like "auto-pass until x" are implemented)? More reactivity, or better interactivity perhaps, but maybe a slightly slower pace?

escapeRoute
11-17-2013, 07:55 AM
ofcourse it moves the game to a more "im free to do what i want into my turn" and so it moves it all the way to a creatures dominance of the board... spells instantly became less important ( we still have to see at wich degree)

The_Shatner
11-17-2013, 12:04 PM
The more I think about it, the more I'm starting to like this change. It removes complexity (debatable, I admit) without removing depth (certainly). I still believe it is overall a counter-intuitive change (and could actually make the game harder for newcomers), but could see the benefit being worth it, especially if the triggered actions that will occur in response to a source could be listed somehow. Though at that point, that dev effort could have been used for any of the suggestions that make leaving triggered actions on the stack easier.

Edit: wowow, ITT: group polarization

Merir
11-17-2013, 12:49 PM
I hate this change and hope it will be reversed. There is no reason for it. I'm fine with pressing spacebar a few more times per match.

funktion
11-17-2013, 01:14 PM
This is what alpha is for, to test changes to the game that could be very beneficial to the game.

Additionally, we want people to give us feedback, but forums are representative of one specific group of people. We want opinions of hardcore TCG players, sure, but we have to consider the entire playerbase's experiences.

I think that any feedback received might be built on a false assumption. Granted there's no way to know how far along the in-house version of the client is, but it really feels like you guys went straight to defcon 5 with this change.

There were a wide range of options which might have been implemented beforehand. Many folks myself included have already said so. If after putting those into place the game still felt too muddy then sure move on to the next step in the process of resolving this issue, eventually you might decide that this change becomes necessary. Internally you might have already moved through that entire process (added a "pass the turn" & "empty the chain" button on your end etc) but if you're trying to collect player feedback from the general populace then I'd say that confirmation bias might be coming into play on a pretty large scale.

In the end I'd like to see a much more robust pass priority system as well as a working phase stop menu which is also a bit more intuitive for new players (currently it does not follow whatever you've selected, it's just a menu with broken implementation).

Edit: In other threads I've seen people mention that they thought this change might make the game more accessible for e-sports. I dissagree, the less reactive the game is the less I want to watch it.

hammer
11-17-2013, 01:42 PM
I wonder if the change might actually have helped them to debug the priority hang-ups a little easier. I mean some triggers are still going on the stack (maybe this is revealing a programming bug maybe they had two goto stack instructions and this conflict was causing the hangs??) I don't know maybe rambling but just a thought.

TimeZero
11-17-2013, 06:10 PM
I wonder if the change might actually have helped them to debug the priority hang-ups a little easier. I mean some triggers are still going on the stack (maybe this is revealing a programming bug maybe they had two goto stack instructions and this conflict was causing the hangs??) I don't know maybe rambling but just a thought.

I am NOT in favor of this change, but I don't mind if it's only a temporary solution to sort things out.
We're still in Alpha build after all, but if this is going to stay, it's not what I pledged for and I'd want a refund of my 250$. (no, it's not the Pro Player tier I got)

Ertzi
11-18-2013, 09:08 AM
the less reactive the game is the less I want to watch it.

This is actually very true for me as well and I hadn't even thought about this angle. If HEX truly aims to be a major force in the world of eSports, the more interactions and reactions there are the better. As a spectator, I would want to see last-gasp reversals and surprising answers to cards and triggers. You know, those "does he have it?" moments. This change limits those I think.

DocX
11-18-2013, 11:13 AM
One other thing: In some cases this change might not even speed up the game at all, because one of the players still has to react to the trigger, anyway. Cards like Giant Corpse Fly, The Mushwocky, Giant Squirrel Titan, Sniper of Gawaine etc. still need reaction from at least one player and the time to click "pass priority" is rather negligible.

Four Worker Bot Factories triggering their abilities together. 16 tokens going onto four different factories. ~4 seconds for the priority window to come up is just over a minute spent clicking on Pass Priority. Add in multiple Dwarven Turbines and you can double that. Not what I'd call negligible.



The real question many have asked before is: Is this "dumbing down" the game?
In many cases: No, it's not "dumbing down" the game, it merely forces players to react one step earlier, like with the "Volcannon" and "Immortality" example. You have to play cards in response to the card itself rather than the trigger, or at the end of your turn rather in reaction to the trigger. However, this can still make for a rather frustrating game experience, because it is very unforgiving, when you make errors, i.e. you forget to play the card that saves/helps you "far" in advance.


Isn't this better from a strategic and skills testing standpoint? Not being reactive, but being proactive? Personally I find it frustrating to have to click on Pass Priority so many times when watching robots explode out onto the battlefield.


But it also forces you to handle unaccessible information more times, mostly anticipating the opponents intention in playing a certain card and not knowing what the trigger will do exactly. More accurately you have no possible way of figuring it out, and the opponent has the double advantage. This will lead to a form of overcautious overreaction to account for as many possibilities as you can, e.g. when your opponent drops a "Giant Squirrel Titan" or a "Sniper of Gawaine" you do not power up the targeted troop (because you can't), but rather as many troops as possible (or at least as many, as you want to save). In effect this also leads to squandering resources in defensive actions more and being really cost-efficient in offensive ones.
On the other side of the table, this makes for very easy choices: A "Giant Squirrel Titan" will always take down a troop safely and survive, as long as the opponent can't buff them all. And you have the double advantage.
Here, we already are in "dumbing down the game" terretory. Making decisions easier for one player and harder to counteract by the other is exactly that.

You're not making decisions easier for a specific player, but for whatever player happens to be on offense. In addition, it means cards will be weighted and costed differently.


So in short. What will this change lead to (in my eyes)?

1. A more unforgiving and subsequently more frustrating game experience.
2. In defense: Overcautious overreation or inaction; in offense: More simple decisions and the double advantage.

And the question is: What is more desireable?

Less reactivity and flexibility for a more streamlined experience (which might not even be true anymore, if gameplay features like "auto-pass until x" are implemented)? More reactivity, or better interactivity perhaps, but maybe a slightly slower pace?

What will this change lead to (in my eyes)?
1. A faster and easier to understand game experience where the complexity lies with the cards, not the fundamentals of the game engine leading to a less frustrating game experience.
2. In defense: more proactive decision making and risk taking as well as more reliance on global buffs (Inspire effects; Blinding Light) instead of those targeting single characters (Charge; Wild Growth; Terrible Transfer); in offense: faster decisions and favoring of aggressive strategies.

More proactive decision making for an easier to grasp game engine and much more interactivity favoring aggressive strategies instead of sitting back and turtling with your troops.

Just offering the counter position.

escapeRoute
11-18-2013, 12:51 PM
exactly, favouring the offensive... wich will take the game on the same track with doc and hearthstone... less strategy oriented and more action oriented...

also, the priority window time delay can be reduced... it doesnt need to be 4 seconds i think... and as allready stated, they could just add a button for "pass on everything" wich could solve the problem... asap... without taking away from strategy

Cazychel
11-18-2013, 03:21 PM
Four Worker Bot Factories triggering their abilities together. 16 tokens going onto four different factories. ~4 seconds for the priority window to come up is just over a minute spent clicking on Pass Priority. Add in multiple Dwarven Turbines and you can double that. Not what I'd call negligible.

This is no reason to dispose the ability to react entirely, rather to streamline the game mechanics and implement "pass all priority" - which will be needed anyway, when you can stack up activated or other abilities and spells. Also I find it rather helpful to actually see all these triggers happening and what will be happening once they resolve.
Yes, that could be done without being able to react, but that would be even more questionable, because it would waste time, all the same.


Isn't this better from a strategic and skills testing standpoint? Not being reactive, but being proactive? Personally I find it frustrating to have to click on Pass Priority so many times when watching robots explode out onto the battlefield.

Just because the game isn't streamlined enough (which might be a reason to deactivate the stacking of triggers temporarily). Being proactive isn't a bad thing, it's a playstyle which I can choose to adopt. But when I want to play a control deck, I usually want to play rather reactive to be able to wait as long as possible to intervene, so that I see all that my opponent is up to. If I am per se punished for that, playing control style decks is even more difficult - and I do not mean "relying heavily on skill and knowledge", but actively hindering the player through the games setup.


You're not making decisions easier for a specific player, but for whatever player happens to be on offense. In addition, it means cards will be weighted and costed differently.

Yes, cards would have to be costed differently, but that would also mean, revamping much of the balance that exists now.
This change is making decisions harder for certain styles of play, like control, and easier for others, here it's rush/aggro decks, top down midrange decks, but really, I am more worried about combo decks relying on triggered effects. The latter could become really, really ugly in the long run, and nearly unstoppable in the worst case (unless they ban the cards).
So certain play styles are favored, but also a certain attitude of playing.


What will this change lead to (in my eyes)?

1. A faster and easier to understand game experience where the complexity lies with the cards, not the fundamentals of the game engine leading to a less frustrating game experience.
2. In defense: more proactive decision making and risk taking as well as more reliance on global buffs (Inspire effects; Blinding Light) instead of those targeting single characters (Charge; Wild Growth; Terrible Transfer); in offense: faster decisions and favoring of aggressive strategies.

More proactive decision making for an easier to grasp game engine and much more interactivity favoring aggressive strategies instead of sitting back and turtling with your troops.

Just offering the counter position.

Easier to grasp game engines are abundant. Hex was never offered as one of such kind, but as a deeply strategic and thoughtful game with the maximum of interactivity and reactivity.

Defensive gameplay should be an option in a balanced TCG, in my eyes. The difficulty is to actually win with a defensive strategy.

m3ltron
11-18-2013, 06:43 PM
I made an account just to provide feedback to this issue. I feel the change for triggered ability is for the worse. Magic Online utilized a "pass priority until end of turn / or pass priority if I can not respond" system using the F keys and it worked great. Hex should utilize something similar, triggered abilities that do not hit the stack will change how entire deck types play (control, burn, etc) and really favors a more simplistic and less strategic game. I understand they're trying to allow the game to play more smoothly, but at this cost? I'm not a fan of this change. There are other ways to keep the game moving along smoothly without removing triggered abilities from the stack.

DocX
11-19-2013, 07:51 AM
Just because the game isn't streamlined enough (which might be a reason to deactivate the stacking of triggers temporarily). Being proactive isn't a bad thing, it's a playstyle which I can choose to adopt. But when I want to play a control deck, I usually want to play rather reactive to be able to wait as long as possible to intervene, so that I see all that my opponent is up to. If I am per se punished for that, playing control style decks is even more difficult - and I do not mean "relying heavily on skill and knowledge", but actively hindering the player through the games setup.

I don't see this as being the case, but true control isn't really an option yet with the current card pool (no Time Ripple, no Counterspell, etc.). I believe control decks may experience a slight nerf in the short term but will be evened out by R&D in the medium or long term. I also believe any loss by control decks will be in line with the normal ebb and flow of deck balance experienced in M:TG, WoW or other TCGs when a new expansion is released.


Easier to grasp game engines are abundant. Hex was never offered as one of such kind, but as a deeply strategic and thoughtful game with the maximum of interactivity and reactivity.

I would like to point out there is a difference between the game engine and the game. The game as a whole is a combination of the engine (aka "the rules") and the card pool. I am confident in CZE's ability to continue to produce a "deeply strategic and thoughtful game with a maximum of interactivity and reactivity" with an easier to grasp game engine by making smart decisions with the card pool.

Also, thanks for the thoughtful comments. I do believe combo decks might be an issue with this change (which is something I had not thought about previously) and something that should be on R&D's radar should this change become permanent.

Ezphares
11-20-2013, 12:36 PM
When I first heard about this change, I most definitely did not like the sound of it, but I decided that I would try it out before complaining. Now with a few games played, I am sure that I don't like it. I do not have any reasons that have not already been mentioned, so I'll just summarize the main problems:

1. It lowers the potential amount of different spells in the game, i.e. things similar to the Stifle card from MTG becomes impossible to create.

2. It makes the game more focused on troops. This is not necessarily a bad thing, depending on the design goals, but to me it seems silly that a creature with a trigger that targets something will be so much better than a spell that does the same thing. I mean, you get the body out of the creature as well, how much better than spells should they be.

3. It seems arbitrary. Why triggered abilities and not activated? Obviously the answer is that with triggered abilities you can react to the action causing the trigger instead, but when you use a targeting system like MTG (with fizzling, etc.) there is much less power in reacting before you know the target. It is also the ONLY situation in the game where you react before knowing the target, making a weird inconsistency with spells and activated abilities.

4. I personally dislike the loss of interaction.

Aradon
11-20-2013, 01:37 PM
1. It lowers the potential amount of different spells in the game, i.e. things similar to the Stifle card from MTG becomes impossible to create.

...

3. It seems arbitrary. Why triggered abilities and not activated? Obviously the answer is that with triggered abilities you can react to the action causing the trigger instead, but when you use a targeting system like MTG (with fizzling, etc.) there is much less power in reacting before you know the target. It is also the ONLY situation in the game where you react before knowing the target, making a weird inconsistency with spells and activated abilities.

These two effects actually interact, too. Due to the desire to be able to react, and the fact that you can't respond to some actions (such as casting a spell or playing a resource), suddenly we can't (or have to be careful with) triggered abilities that trigger from actions that don't offer reactions. What I'm saying is, suddenly there can be no triggered ability that says, "When you cast a spell, target opponent discards a card." Design space is limited. Arguably, I am also saying that Wild Root Dancer can't say, "When you play a resource, target creature gets permanent +2/+2." These effects don't have the same level of fairness.

Eierdotter
11-21-2013, 02:46 AM
i think it is kinda cool to have some abilities, that simply happen without a chance to do something against them.

for example the scrivener, "a troop enters play = you gain 1 health"
the combo, that makes the paladin a 3/3 when he hits the battelfield is just awesome.

probably a new keyword needs to be added there, like "global" or "NoStack"
so the scrivener gets a text like
"NoStack: When a troop spell resolves, you gain 1 health"

Wrenlocke:
"NoStack: When you play a Action, draw a card" (this happens before it resolves, aka when you cast it and it goes on the stack, you draw the card before the enemy is able to counter it/ kill wrenlocke)

abilities without this keyword, still go on the stack, to answer them, most likely everything that could kill you, like turreted wall, etc.

escapeRoute
11-21-2013, 04:30 AM
its not cool at all, its hearthstone... and i allready have a key for that game.

if the cost of the cards that works that way its increased by 3 mana then, yes, im fine with the change... else, hell no

btw, i tried a game a bit (i was able to have a couple of matches between crashes) and no, this change sucks... hard

Tesseract
11-26-2013, 09:18 PM
Has there been any update on if they are putting this decision in stone yet?

I didn't know they made this change until I went googling to figure out why I couldn't respond to creature abilities. I don't like this change at all. It limits the design space of cards and greatly reduces the depth of the game. I also find it unfair that creatures can respond to spells but spells cannot respond to creatures. It also lowers the utility of fast actions.

This is greatly hampering control decks. It lowers my options during an opponents turn as I now need to preempt monster abilities rather than respond.

None of us want Hex to become Hearthstone. Most people I know along with myself stopped playing Hearthstone as shortly after checking the game out it quickly becomes apparent how shallow the game it. Maybe I haven't played enough or gone searching enough but it doesn't seem to be a game where you can really create a game around combos. It's mostly put in a handful of answers and a couple big bad guys then make sure your resource curve is good.

At the same time I can see why Hex wants to distance itself from MTG. We cannot pretend the games aren't extremely similar. Between the difference in the resource system, the champions, and where key cards are in the color pie (read: Hex's Wraith of God is black) it is clear that Cryptozoic is taking measures to distance themselves. I feel like this ability-stack change too drastic.

After looking at the cards available and playing my first impression is that this is a creature heavy game, and that this creature heaviness is very distinct from MTG. This leads itself to either "I'm putting up a wall of creatures to stop you from attacking while I set up a combo" or "Let's see who can draw their trump card first?" kind of gameplay. This style of gameplay gets very stale and boring quickly.

I'm not going to pretend to be a prophet, maybe the designers do have a good roadmap with new abilities and cards to change up the gameplay when the new sets drop after release. Then again maybe they don't. Cryptozoic can't really say for sure what is going to happen to the metagame when a new set hits. They can design all they want but until the thousands of players get a hold of the sets and truly play tests the new sets no one will know. This isn't meant to be an offensive remark about Cryptozoic, but rather a simple truth that thousands of people trying to find a way to break a game is much successful than a handful (or hundreds).

My fear is is that this design will limit the metagame. A simple truth is that only a handful of cards of any set will see competitive use. As the sets get older and the card pool grows larger, a smaller and smaller set of cards in new sets will see use. With this new rule in place many cards that would be awesome are going to be passed over as their utility is so marginalized that the card slot in the deck is better served elsewhere.

Looking at this decision I can only question what Cryptozoic's vision of Hex is. I kickstarted because I saw Hex as a competitive online TCG that uses technology to give us options that paper TCG's can't. I got excited because I loved MTG until it got too expensive and I lost the ability to commit a Friday night to drafting. This is in contrast with other virtual TCG's such as Hearthstone that are more envisioned as a way to have fun for 20 or so minutes. And while I hate the word and the arguments that come from it's use this change screams of a "casualization" of the game to make it more accessible (but at the same time lessening the depth).

I do think Hex needs a "pass all priority" button to allow large stacks to resolve without having to click continue at every chance. I think we can all agree on that. I can also see that it might be worth at some point in the future to explore the idea of a "beginner/fast mode" for new players that allows creature abilities to resolve instantaneously.

My hope is that this change is only temporary. That when the client and server structure are made more efficient and things are more fleshed out abilities will go back on the stack. This is an alpha, so changes like this to keep us testing other aspects of the game are warranted.

ossuary
11-29-2013, 08:44 AM
They have not given any further feedback or response on the reactions to the change in the past week or two. I would really like to know what their further internal discussions have been like since they have gotten all of these negative responses from their core followers.

Just one thing I will add for the record: Magic the Gathering has also become considerably more creature-focused over the past 3 or 4 years. They have made a conscious effort to move at least a little ways back in that direction from where they were 6 or 8 years ago where there was very little focus or power placed in the hands of creatures by comparison to other effects and abilities. That doesn't really sway this argument one way or another, it's just a point I thought should be mentioned.

Being able to interact with some classifications of abilities and not others is very disturbing, especially since giving those abilities to some creatures and constants makes them SIGNIFICANTLY more powerful than they would be otherwise.

escapeRoute
11-29-2013, 09:09 AM
They have not given any further feedback or response on the reactions to the change in the past week or two. I would really like to know what their further internal discussions have been like since they have gotten all of these negative responses from their core followers.

Just one thing I will add for the record: Magic the Gathering has also become considerably more creature-focused over the past 3 or 4 years. They have made a conscious effort to move at least a little ways back in that direction from where they were 6 or 8 years ago where there was very little focus or power placed in the hands of creatures by comparison to other effects and abilities. That doesn't really sway this argument one way or another, it's just a point I thought should be mentioned.

Being able to interact with some classifications of abilities and not others is very disturbing, especially since giving those abilities to some creatures and constants makes them SIGNIFICANTLY more powerful than they would be otherwise.

and thats why i left magic 4/5 years ago.. it just is the shadow of the great game it was

Badoodles
11-30-2013, 11:52 PM
We are implementing a new feature this week to our engine that will make games play smoother and cut many of the unnecessary actions you are forced to take in a turn. With patch 815, triggered abilities will not go on the the chain and instead will simply resolve.

While I completely agree with effort to smoothen gameplay by reducing actions. I agree with the previous post that a "pass till end of turn" hot key would be a more direct and efficient fix that doesn't impact game depth and strategy. Even better if combined with a "pass till opponent performs an action" hot key.

Here's one way of looking at things, removing triggered abilities from the chain only saves 1 action per turn that a card with a triggered ability is in play at the expense of game play depth. A pass till end of turn button and/or pass until opponent performs an action would save 1 action per unnecessary phase stop.

Putting it that way, the value proposition is a no brainer.