PDA

View Full Version : Stack Idea: Pass Priority Toggle Button



havocattack
11-13-2013, 12:11 PM
I think a better solution in regards to the stack effects would be the following:

Have some sort of UI button or something that users can tick which basically makes it so you are stating to the game that you won't be doing anything this turn. Once this option is ticked, then the new change will go into effect for that turn. (pass priority automatically and also triggers not going onto the stack)

That way, if you have a burn or something you can do this turn to stop a triggered effect then you would not click the button and be able to respond to triggers like normal (things would appear on stack as they did pre-patch)

This would speed up the game significantly, but also allow responses when you have them.

Just a quick thought, what do you guys think?




Edit: Just to clarify it a bit, here is an example situation:

You are playing a game and have used up all your resources during your turn and have nothing you can possibly do on your opponents turn.

Once on your opponents turn, you can click the button and everything will pass priority automatically or just not even show up (even faster) and also any triggers your opponent does during his turn will not go onto stack (as the new patch works I guess)

So, when you have things you want to do during your opponents turn, you simply do not click the button and you are essentially able to respond to all things as you could pre-patch (burn that wild root dancer target before it receives a buff etc etc)

Hopefully that all makes sense and you all like the idea ;)

Soldack
11-13-2013, 12:23 PM
I like giving player pass options as Havoc describes.

Instead of doing away with the order, turn it off on default perhaps and let players turn it off.

Anything to speed up play is likely to get my support.

GrinningBuddha
11-13-2013, 12:24 PM
Another option that I like is what KroanNL has been suggesting: A "Don't respond to this any more" option when passing priority. The first time your opponent activates his Inspiration Engine, you click that option and you don't have to continually pass priority every time he uses it. Same for the Dwarven Turbine(s) powering it.

That alone would speed up the game significantly. You could have a reset button in where the phase stops are located just in case your opponent is doing something different. Between this and Havoc's suggestion, that's a large portion of the mindless clicking eliminated, no?

havocattack
11-13-2013, 12:29 PM
Yep, there is definitely several ways they can tackle this, obviously the current solution heavily changes the way we perceive the value of certain cards etc and also certain gameplay elements.

I personally don't like the sound of it but obviously have yet to try it out, but either way I think something like my idea would be better suited :)

Cantrip
11-13-2013, 12:34 PM
Yes they should consider doing something like this.

jtatta
11-13-2013, 12:40 PM
I've been saying this in other threads as well but let me explain something that magic online does well (albeit, the list is very small because that client is abysmal).

You have "hotkeys." By pressing F5, it's telling the client that you're passing priority through the turn. Hex can implment this in any way that they'd like but it's a very good option that drastically speeds up games.

They also have an option like Kroan is talking about. By right clicking an ability on the stack, you can click "Always yield to this ability" or "Never yield to this ability" and your problems are solved. Now, I'm not saying that it's as easy as that. I'm sure that there are some scripting hoops to jump through to make that work, but to me that seems like a better change.

Again, just voicing my opinion.

Bullus
11-13-2013, 12:47 PM
interesting idea, constantly passing priority gets boring

Damascus
11-13-2013, 01:38 PM
I strongly agree with this idea, and it's exactly what I've been advocating as well. Streamlining the game is important, but should not be done at the expense of nuanced gameplay/options.

hammer
11-13-2013, 02:05 PM
Enable Auto-Triggers (i.e triggers do not use the chain) But-

1) Add a pass priority *if* a trigger would alter the power or defence of a troop.
2) Move all phase-specific triggers to the end of a phase rather than the start.

knightofeffect
11-13-2013, 02:24 PM
I think it is an excellent idea! A fully implemented priority passing system would be the ideal way to go with intelligent new player defaults. Even better, it could ask the player how experienced they are at TCGs and switch between a couple intelligent defaults with a training module that teaches a player how to "upgrade" to appropriately using full stops.

The idea is to mitigate the grindy feel for new players (more video game like) while keeping all the competitive complexity intact for us hardcore TCGers. The key will be to provide a smooth learning curve to transition from one to the other once the new players have been bitten by the bug but before they play against people that seem to be almost cheating with all their fancy stops. :P

That being said, I'm really looking forward to playing with this new trigger system to see how different it feels. :)

noragar
11-13-2013, 02:32 PM
I would rather have the game figure out for me that I have no legal responses to a particular action and automatically pass priority for me instead of having to constantly try to figure out for myself whether I have any options or not and how far into the future I won't have options, then click a checkbox to make it happen and remember to unclick the checkbox at the right time.

For those that don't want to telegraph to their opponent that they don't have any possible response, they could implement a random time delay of 0.5-1.5 seconds before auto-passing (not that I would have a problem making the auto-pass instantly either).

SomeoneRandom
11-13-2013, 02:48 PM
I agree noragar, honestly moving to a digital space removes a large amount of the telegraphing anyways. Unless I am in a Top 8-32 of a big tournament I am more likely to assume my opponent got distracted by a shiny object before I assume he is debating between which of his 4 kill spells in hand he is going to use.

Honestly most of the people who are smart enough to do things like telegraphing would be smart enough to deal with a custom passing system.

Kroan
11-13-2013, 03:55 PM
I agree noragar, honestly moving to a digital space removes a large amount of the telegraphing anyways. Unless I am in a Top 8-32 of a big tournament I am more likely to assume my opponent got distracted by a shiny object before I assume he is debating between which of his 4 kill spells in hand he is going to use. I actually was able to tell multiple times if a person hold a certain cards by analyzing how long he needed to respond to a pass priority button.

havocattack
11-13-2013, 04:16 PM
I actually was able to tell multiple times if a person hold a certain cards by analyzing how long he needed to respond to a pass priority button.

Same here, good thing with my suggestion is that you can still bluff opponents or manually pass priority if you wanna continue with mind games and stuff ;)

Like, you could even set it to auto pass priority and so your opponent then sees that you passed very quickly this turn, so next turn they may think its safe to attack with everything (thinking you don't have a combat trick) and then you spring your trap >_>

Saefer
11-13-2013, 05:30 PM
This ability change really feels like a step in the wrong direction, and I wish to express my feels even though others already have said the same thing :P

It seems very silly to implement this ability change just to save a bit of time when there are better options that aren't new ideas.

As it has been stated, just add hotkeys for things like auto-passing until end of turn or until you need to make a forced sacrifice/discard. Another hotkey/ui option to allow me to always ignore triggers from a specific source. This is like using custom stops, you get to choose the pace you like to play.

Sure, if I don't have answers for things, I don't need to see them happen every time. That's what these options deal with. Don't make the game auto-decide that I don't have options for every card in existence when that isn't always true. Let me choose please.

dwebber88
11-13-2013, 11:41 PM
This is the result of collective thinking, people start threads with possible better solutions to what is offered but not yet finalized.

Perfect. I certainly hope CZE will take the info in this thread into consideration.

I have played some games with 0.815, and i think there are indeed better solutions than the current one applied.

Edit: My personal input: CZE, you could default to the applied system in 0.815 AND make players able to disable it in the settings AND implement something like john suggested.


You have "hotkeys." By pressing F5, it's telling the client that you're passing priority through the turn. Hex can implment this in any way that they'd like but it's a very good option that drastically speeds up games.

FeelNFine
11-14-2013, 02:32 AM
Splitting triggers between active and passive would be great solution, and if you do that you could keep passives at start of turn, but give each person a chance to play something before they resolve.

saudipanda
11-14-2013, 02:55 AM
For those that don't want to telegraph to their opponent that they don't have any possible response, they could implement a random time delay of 0.5-1.5 seconds before auto-passing (not that I would have a problem making the auto-pass instantly either).
This is important. Ideally, it would randomize the delay up to 3 seconds.

havocattack
11-14-2013, 04:33 AM
Don't worry guys CZE will definitely read our feedback/suggestions :)

SomeoneRandom
11-14-2013, 06:20 AM
This is important. Ideally, it would randomize the delay up to 3 seconds.

The delay really doesn't matter it just changes what the time your opponent has to take before you start to think about what is in their hand. If you pass 5 times within 3 seconds I would have no reason to believe you had anything to play at all. You aren't bluffing you aren't thinking you are just waiting the minimum amount of time to let the game pass for you, wasting more time for some perceived bluff. It should be 0 seconds or not even a feature.

omghex
11-15-2013, 01:04 PM
Cryptozoic, you need to consider card interactions here and realize that removing triggers from the chain effectively makes certain cards much more powerful. Take, for example, Wild Root Dancer. There is now effectively no way for somebody to keep me from getting +2/+2 on one of my creatures if I play the dancer and a resource on the same turn. So look at it this way. If I am playing a ramp deck that goes howling brave turn one into chlorophylia turn two. Turn Three I have enough mana to play a two costed creature, then play a Wild Root Dancer, then play a resource. My opponent now can't wait to see what creature I decide to pump, and because he gets no priority after allowing Wild Root Dancer to be cast, and playing resources doesn't go on the stack. My opponent simply sits there while I play this card and pump a creature. Sure this isn't an issue if their solution is "Murder" but if their solution is a "Burn" now there is a 3/3 on the board that they weren't able to do anything about even though they had what should have been a solution in their hand. Cards like Sniper of Gawaine's ability become even stronger as well because there is no way to pump a creature in response to the damage it is being dealt, sure you could pump in response to the sniper being played, but there is inherent value to pumping a creature in response to it being targeted by burn damage as it wastes the effect of the opposing card. You also can't sacrifice a creature in response to its being targeted by a Sniper which removes the chance for getting some value for the loss of your creature.

Interactivity is what makes games like this fun. I mean, you could make the game the most streamlined by eliminating quick actions from the game, that would remove a majority of priority stops (you wouldn't interact with anything on your opponent's turn). Sounds pretty streamlined, but also excruciatingly boring, and limiting. Who is sitting around saying "man you know what I wish I just didn't have to click this button like those five extra times? We're gamers. Clicking buttons is what we do. we don't mind it, seriously.

Damascus
11-15-2013, 05:49 PM
Cryptozoic, you need to consider card interactions here and realize that removing triggers from the chain effectively makes certain cards much more powerful. Take, for example, Wild Root Dancer. There is now effectively no way for somebody to keep me from getting +2/+2 on one of my creatures if I play the dancer and a resource on the same turn. So look at it this way. If I am playing a ramp deck that goes howling brave turn one into chlorophylia turn two. Turn Three I have enough mana to play a two costed creature, then play a Wild Root Dancer, then play a resource. My opponent now can't wait to see what creature I decide to pump, and because he gets no priority after allowing Wild Root Dancer to be cast, and playing resources doesn't go on the stack. My opponent simply sits there while I play this card and pump a creature. Sure this isn't an issue if their solution is "Murder" but if their solution is a "Burn" now there is a 3/3 on the board that they weren't able to do anything about even though they had what should have been a solution in their hand. Cards like Sniper of Gawaine's ability become even stronger as well because there is no way to pump a creature in response to the damage it is being dealt, sure you could pump in response to the sniper being played, but there is inherent value to pumping a creature in response to it being targeted by burn damage as it wastes the effect of the opposing card. You also can't sacrifice a creature in response to its being targeted by a Sniper which removes the chance for getting some value for the loss of your creature.

Interactivity is what makes games like this fun. I mean, you could make the game the most streamlined by eliminating quick actions from the game, that would remove a majority of priority stops (you wouldn't interact with anything on your opponent's turn). Sounds pretty streamlined, but also excruciatingly boring, and limiting. Who is sitting around saying "man you know what I wish I just didn't have to click this button like those five extra times? We're gamers. Clicking buttons is what we do. we don't mind it, seriously.

I think this is worded really well

zaril
11-15-2013, 06:01 PM
I agree. I also have to say I think the focus should be put on making passing priorities easier/more fluent, than taking it away. There's just too much goodness to lose. What makes it tedious now imo, is the fact that it takes a long time before it actually does pass the priority. If the pass priority instantly and nicely came into focus, a click makes it instantly disappear and the priority getting passed fast, I don't see a problem. Clicking is responsive in this case and not a hassle. Add options as well to pass more than one priority in case you have NO real counters and want to abstain any interaction until it's your turn etc.

havocattack
11-15-2013, 10:22 PM
bump :) keep those opinions coming!

Kami
11-15-2013, 10:32 PM
bump :) keep those opinions coming!

Please don't do that.

Stok3d
11-16-2013, 08:36 AM
Title Updated

Malakili
11-16-2013, 09:35 AM
cards like Sniper of Gawaine's ability become even stronger as well because there is no way to pump a creature in response to the damage it is being dealt, sure you could pump in response to the sniper being played, but there is inherent value to pumping a creature in response to it being targeted by burn damage as it wastes the effect of the opposing card. You also can't sacrifice a creature in response to its being targeted by a Sniper which removes the chance for getting some value for the loss of your creature.

Interactivity is what makes games like this fun.


To me this is the knock down argument. At the end of the day, this is what makes a card game game great. Sure, there are lots of triggers which one could call "less important" to get priority for (cerebral fulmination for example). But chucking things out like described above is a BIG BIG BIG change to how the game plays.

Yoss
11-18-2013, 01:46 PM
Another option that I like is what KroanNL has been suggesting: A "Don't respond to this any more" option when passing priority. The first time your opponent activates his Inspiration Engine, you click that option and you don't have to continually pass priority every time he uses it. Same for the Dwarven Turbine(s) powering it.

Something like this sounds good. I do not like the new "triggers bypass the chain" idea. Instead, let the player decide which triggers he doesn't care about, maybe even as a metagame choice so that if you never want to respond to Rage abilities when playing a particular deck, you can set it up ahead of time.

However, the underlying "rule book" would still have triggers using the chain, you'd just be auto-passing when they do.

I missed this on first pass, and it is worth re-posting:

Cryptozoic, you need to consider card interactions here and realize that removing triggers from the chain effectively makes certain cards much more powerful. Take, for example, Wild Root Dancer. There is now effectively no way for somebody to keep me from getting +2/+2 on one of my creatures if I play the dancer and a resource on the same turn. So look at it this way. If I am playing a ramp deck that goes howling brave turn one into chlorophylia turn two. Turn Three I have enough mana to play a two costed creature, then play a Wild Root Dancer, then play a resource. My opponent now can't wait to see what creature I decide to pump, and because he gets no priority after allowing Wild Root Dancer to be cast, and playing resources doesn't go on the stack. My opponent simply sits there while I play this card and pump a creature. Sure this isn't an issue if their solution is "Murder" but if their solution is a "Burn" now there is a 3/3 on the board that they weren't able to do anything about even though they had what should have been a solution in their hand. Cards like Sniper of Gawaine's ability become even stronger as well because there is no way to pump a creature in response to the damage it is being dealt, sure you could pump in response to the sniper being played, but there is inherent value to pumping a creature in response to it being targeted by burn damage as it wastes the effect of the opposing card. You also can't sacrifice a creature in response to its being targeted by a Sniper which removes the chance for getting some value for the loss of your creature.

Interactivity is what makes games like this fun. I mean, you could make the game the most streamlined by eliminating quick actions from the game, that would remove a majority of priority stops (you wouldn't interact with anything on your opponent's turn). Sounds pretty streamlined, but also excruciatingly boring, and limiting. Who is sitting around saying "man you know what I wish I just didn't have to click this button like those five extra times? We're gamers. Clicking buttons is what we do. we don't mind it, seriously.

omghex
11-19-2013, 04:14 PM
Another major issue with removing triggered abilities from the chain that I didn't post about in my first post, is that it significantly limits the design space. Combo decks based on triggered abilities will be able to kill without any interaction from the opponent. This means that from a design point of view Cryptozoic can NEVER create a combo on purpose or accidentally that kills using triggered abilities. This is a hell of a lot to sacrifice for the sake of a few less buttons being pushed throughout the game. Was anybody even actually complaining about having to pass priority when abilities trigger? A better solution would be to find the "big offenders" like Fang, and retool those specific cards to make their effects work more smoothly. So with Fang you would word the ability something like "At the start of your turn this card deals one damage to you. This effect happens instantly." Then in the rules, or even parenthetically on the card text, explain that "Instantly" means the effect cannot be responded to.

noragar
11-20-2013, 07:48 AM
Another major issue with removing triggered abilities from the chain that I didn't post about in my first post, is that it significantly limits the design space. Combo decks based on triggered abilities will be able to kill without any interaction from the opponent. This means that from a design point of view Cryptozoic can NEVER create a combo on purpose or accidentally that kills using triggered abilities. This is a hell of a lot to sacrifice for the sake of a few less buttons being pushed throughout the game. Was anybody even actually complaining about having to pass priority when abilities trigger? A better solution would be to find the "big offenders" like Fang, and retool those specific cards to make their effects work more smoothly. So with Fang you would word the ability something like "At the start of your turn this card deals one damage to you. This effect happens instantly." Then in the rules, or even parenthetically on the card text, explain that "Instantly" means the effect cannot be responded to.

Or they could keep the first set simple as an introduction to new players, then in the future, if they need to create a card where it's best to be able to react to it, they could make the ability "At the start of your turn you win the game. This effect does not happen instantly." Then in the rules, or even parenthetically on the card text, explain that "Does not happen instantly" means the effect can be responded to.

Yoss
11-20-2013, 09:56 AM
Or they could keep the first set simple as an introduction to new players, then in the future, if they need to create a card where it's best to be able to react to it, they could make the ability "At the start of your turn you win the game. This effect does not happen instantly." Then in the rules, or even parenthetically on the card text, explain that "Does not happen instantly" means the effect can be responded to.
There are already cards with triggers that need to be able to have responses. They've already been posted in one of these threads (the paladin, the dancer, and so on). I'm with omghex that the global change is a bad one and they should instead mark only certain cards as bypassing the chain, and then only when absolutely necessary.

noragar
11-20-2013, 11:27 AM
There are already cards with triggers that need to be able to have responses. They've already been posted in one of these threads (the paladin, the dancer, and so on). I'm with omghex that the global change is a bad one and they should instead mark only certain cards as bypassing the chain, and then only when absolutely necessary.

A card only needs to be able to have responses if it changes the balance or meta of the game. I don't see any of the listed cards doing that.

The vast majority of the time, you would be better off burning the Root Dancer than you would be burning the troop that he will be targeting, at least in situations where the targeted troop is a 1/1 or 2/2 which is where burn would come in to play. For other types of removal spells if it works against a 6/6, it'll work against a 8/8.

In the specific case where a Paladin comes in to play with a Scrivener on board, it takes him out of reach of a Burn spell. In what percentage of the games will that three card combination come up? The consensus I've seen so far is that Diamond is the weakest of the five shards, so perhaps getting a minuscule boost like this would actually help the meta. If they added text to that Paladin making him immune to BURN, would that be game changing?

While I still would prefer changing the pass priority system to be more streamlined with either auto-passing when there are no possible plays, or more customizable auto-passing options, the change they've made really doesn't have much of an impact. Control decks are still able to do exactly what they've always done in 99% of the cases. It's just taking away the option to do something in a few cases where most of the time it would be sub-optimal to do anything anyway.

Damascus
11-20-2013, 01:46 PM
A card only needs to be able to have responses if it changes the balance or meta of the game. I don't see any of the listed cards doing that.

The vast majority of the time, you would be better off burning the Root Dancer than you would be burning the troop that he will be targeting, at least in situations where the targeted troop is a 1/1 or 2/2 which is where burn would come in to play. For other types of removal spells if it works against a 6/6, it'll work against a 8/8.

In the specific case where a Paladin comes in to play with a Scrivener on board, it takes him out of reach of a Burn spell. In what percentage of the games will that three card combination come up? The consensus I've seen so far is that Diamond is the weakest of the five shards, so perhaps getting a minuscule boost like this would actually help the meta. If they added text to that Paladin making him immune to BURN, would that be game changing?

While I still would prefer changing the pass priority system to be more streamlined with either auto-passing when there are no possible plays, or more customizable auto-passing options, the change they've made really doesn't have much of an impact. Control decks are still able to do exactly what they've always done in 99% of the cases. It's just taking away the option to do something in a few cases where most of the time it would be sub-optimal to do anything anyway.

Firstly I'd say cards like root dancer absolutely change the meta of the game (root dancer is a really good card) - but secondly, are you really saying that just because those specific cards aren't game breaking that the rules of the game should be changed? There's only one set out right now - why limit design space?
This decision shouldn't be made based on whether the current cards / scenarios are 'only a little important' or 'meta-defining' ; the game should define the implementation of the cards, not the other way around.

noragar
11-20-2013, 02:30 PM
Firstly I'd say cards like root dancer absolutely change the meta of the game (root dancer is a really good card) - but secondly, are you really saying that just because those specific cards aren't game breaking that the rules of the game should be changed? There's only one set out right now - why limit design space?
This decision shouldn't be made based on whether the current cards / scenarios are 'only a little important' or 'meta-defining' ; the game should define the implementation of the cards, not the other way around.

Firstly, I'm hesitant to call a modification made early in the alpha test an actual rule change, but no, I'm not saying that the rule should be changed only because there's not much impact with the existing cards. I'm just pointing out that the difference between designing the game with triggers on the stack and designing the game without triggers on the stack (at least with the cards that we've seen so far) is really pretty small in contrast to the numerous posts saying that the new system is "game-breaking", "meta-changing", "less interactive", "dumbing down the game", etc.

As far as "limiting design space", I know the game designers have a much better idea of how the future design is going to evolve that I do. I'm willing to bet they have a better idea of the future design plans than any other forum posters. If the game designers aren't concerned that setting up the game mechanics this way will limit future design space, then I'm not worried about it either.

So in short (or I guess, TL;DR since that seems to be the new catchphrase going around) - Do I think taking all triggers of the stack is the optimal solution? No, probably not. Do I think it would "harm" the game in any meaningful way? No, so if the game designers think it's a good thing, then I'm willing to go along.

omghex
11-20-2013, 05:10 PM
Look at what is lost in terms of interactivity and design space, and look at what is gained by the decision, and you have an overall net negative. Show me a person that is super sad about having to click through a trigger. It's a "solution" to a "problem" that doesn't exist. They're changing the way a broad set of abilities work to "smooth out" the way just three or four cards effect gameplay. Triggered abilities are a broad set of abilities, it also doesn't really benefit new players. It's not the new players that are going to break the hell out of any slightly misdesigned triggered ability, it's me, and I will use the decks I make to make the game "unfun" by crushing new players. It's not just the intentional design space that is limited, it's cryptozoic's ability to make mistakes, which will happen. When they make those mistakes, you are going to see insane format warping combos that cause mass people to quit the game. Unless they plan on constantly making slight changes to how cards work, in which case players will never be able to trust their investment in the metagame because you'll never know when the card you built your deck around is going to get nerfed. If you look at the design history of games like Magic: The Gathering, you will see that even the people that invented this kind of game, and have been making it for 20 years, still make format warping design mistakes. Why increase your chances of that for the sake of saving a few click throughs?

Damascus
11-20-2013, 11:19 PM
Look at what is lost in terms of interactivity and design space, and look at what is gained by the decision, and you have an overall net negative. Show me a person that is super sad about having to click through a trigger. It's a "solution" to a "problem" that doesn't exist. They're changing the way a broad set of abilities work to "smooth out" the way just three or four cards effect gameplay. Triggered abilities are a broad set of abilities, it also doesn't really benefit new players. It's not the new players that are going to break the hell out of any slightly misdesigned triggered ability, it's me, and I will use the decks I make to make the game "unfun" by crushing new players. It's not just the intentional design space that is limited, it's cryptozoic's ability to make mistakes, which will happen. When they make those mistakes, you are going to see insane format warping combos that cause mass people to quit the game. Unless they plan on constantly making slight changes to how cards work, in which case players will never be able to trust their investment in the metagame because you'll never know when the card you built your deck around is going to get nerfed. If you look at the design history of games like Magic: The Gathering, you will see that even the people that invented this kind of game, and have been making it for 20 years, still make format warping design mistakes. Why increase your chances of that for the sake of saving a few click throughs?

I very much agree with this, and I have to say that something that shapes my opinion greatly on this matter is indeed the way that MtG works. This game is very similar, and as someone who has played MtG for 10+ years I can say that the way triggers are handled in MtG works well. Their card game has been around for 20+ years at this point, and most of their design decisions have reasoning behind them (AND players like them - this game appeals to many of the people here because of its similarity to Magic).

While nobody is really sure what the implications on design space for this will be months/years down the line, the obvious ones right now are still enough for me to dislike the change. The only benefits are strictly time-based (save a few seconds each phase) which can just as easily be solved via streamlining how priority is passed via UI changes later on.

The downsides however, in addition to the ones we already know about, have really not yet been fully explored. All we (and most likely even the design team) can do is speculate about how this might shape the game. Unfortunately, if it turns out that this really does limit some really cool ideas later on, it will be too late at that point to change.
Is it really worth diverging from a model of proven success from the last 20 years to save people a few clicks each game in the alpha, rather than just implementing streamlined priority-passing? Best case scenario: you aren't limited that much, and the programmers can be lazy and just leave the priority passing how it is (side note: crappy UI is why I don't play MtGO). Worst case: it removes depth, interactivity, and card ideas from the game.

How can that risk possibly be justified? Especially for something so trivial to fix, that has so many potential work-arounds? (examples that have been brought up: checkbox to auto-pass trigger priorities, right click cards to auto-pass priority on them, etc)

Quasari
11-21-2013, 09:10 AM
There needs to be some of this action to speed up the game. Unlike paper, we can't just say "uh uh uh, I'm responding", and treat any silence as a nonverbal pass. The digital tcgs of this magnitude are slow due to this. There are a ton of trigger effects that it doesn't matter if anyone responds to them(resources, created cards, etc), these are great to not go on the stack. Then there are triggered effects that people will want to respond to(Wild Root Dancer, Righteous Paladin, etc), these should go on the stack.

I saw the suggestion that they make the ones worth responding to active...and I have to say that is too clunky. It'll be clunky in the wording, and clunky in practice. We should not go down that route. However, the idea of separating the ability types is worth mentioning. Discussion came up on the split-second keyword from magic. It IS very powerful, but if we mutate it to a form that indicates whether a triggered ability goes on the stack we might be going down the right path.

So let's say we create a keyword that denotes a triggered ability won't go on the stack, say Instantaneous(Probably should be shorter, but let's use this as an example). We could word the triggered abilities this way(let's say we're using The Ancestor's Chosen):

Instantaneous: At the start of your turn, create two Ancestral Specters and shuffle them into your deck.

This way, a good portion of triggered abilities stay of the stack and thus speed the game up considerably, while allowing counterplay for abilities that would merit it. The same thing could probably be applied to active abilities that are innocuous themselves, like say Concubunny:

Instantaneous: [1], [ACT], Exhaust another Shin'hare you control: Create a Battle Hopper.

Overall, this should have the same effect as the current change to game speed(possibly greater), while still giving plenty of room for counterplay.

Oaka23
11-21-2013, 09:58 AM
"hair-trigger"

Quasari
11-21-2013, 10:13 AM
"hair-trigger"

I like it.

hammer
11-21-2013, 10:26 AM
I will suggest "Rapid"

Yoss
11-21-2013, 10:56 AM
Posts 35 and 36 are excellent.


"hair-trigger"

Unless it's on a Shin, then it's "hare-trigger".

More seriously, I like "Rapid". Other ideas: Fast, Sly (since it "sneaks by" the chain), Interrupt (yay for old MTG concepts).

ossuary
11-21-2013, 11:05 AM
I could get behind this idea of, insteading of only focusing on triggered abilities, we revamped the whole system. The idea being that almost all the abilities with no targets would have this "Rapid" or "Interrupt" ability that just resolves, but that any (or let's say most) of the abilities that have a target would still use the stack.

Generally speaking, I don't actually have a problem with abilities not going on the stack, as long as they're things you shouldn't NEED to respond to (resources, exhausting a troop, etc.). It's the targeted stuff that is really harmful to gameplay when it bypasses the stack. This seems like a better solution, and still leaves them open to design a few specific targeted abilities now and then that DO bypass the stack (making them more powerful than their "normal speed" counterparts).

Yoss
11-22-2013, 10:59 AM
Generally speaking, I don't actually have a problem with abilities not going on the stack, as long as they're things you shouldn't NEED to respond to (resources, exhausting a troop, etc.). It's the targeted stuff that is really harmful to gameplay when it bypasses the stack.
In general I agree, but there are some non-targeted things that are still worth responding to, like the Paladin example.

Passarelli
11-24-2013, 04:27 AM
Concubunny:

Instantaneous: [1], [ACT], Exhaust another Shin'hare you control: Create a Battle Hopper.



This would actually be a buff (though a small one) due to the fact if you have a playable action that, say, returns it to their hand, you could simply be waiting for them to use the 1 resource rather then playing it immediately.

If they go the keyword route, nothing that is activatable and costs mana or affects another troop should be instantanious. Cards that come into play and affect all of your or your opponents troops globally would be fine because they can buff their creatures during the summon phase. Something like the Sniper that deals damage to a single troop is not because they don't get a chance to react to the specially damage troop.

I would much rather see it designed where there is random delay (you can make it player adjustable up to say, 1.5 standard deviations of the average players reaction time for pass priority when they have a choice to make.) and the system senses if you can make any choices. This way you are not telegraphing your hand and it will still speed up the game.

Quasari
11-24-2013, 12:14 PM
This would actually be a buff (though a small one) due to the fact if you have a playable action that, say, returns it to their hand, you could simply be waiting for them to use the 1 resource rather then playing it immediately.

If they go the keyword route, nothing that is activatable and costs mana or affects another troop should be instantanious. Cards that come into play and affect all of your or your opponents troops globally would be fine because they can buff their creatures during the summon phase. Something like the Sniper that deals damage to a single troop is not because they don't get a chance to react to the specially damage troop.

I would much rather see it designed where there is random delay (you can make it player adjustable up to say, 1.5 standard deviations of the average players reaction time for pass priority when they have a choice to make.) and the system senses if you can make any choices. This way you are not telegraphing your hand and it will still speed up the game.
Concubunnies ability should go on the stack as soon as its cost is played and even if she leaves play it should still happen, there wouldn't really be a buff unless a card that can interrupt abilities is implemented.

Yoss
12-02-2013, 06:12 PM
I'm surprised that discussion has fallen silent on this. Or maybe it moved to another subforum?

Quasari
12-02-2013, 07:52 PM
I'm surprised that discussion has fallen silent on this. Or maybe it moved to another subforum?

It's probably people are tired of discussing it>.<

Yoss
12-03-2013, 10:29 AM
Actually, it just moved to the Alpha forum:

http://forums.cryptozoic.com/showthread.php?t=30057

Holyshi
12-04-2013, 06:14 AM
This is the result of collective thinking, people start threads with possible better solutions to what is offered but not yet finalized.

Perfect. I certainly hope CZE will take the info in this thread into consideration.

I have played some games with 0.815, and i think there are indeed better solutions than the current one applied.

Edit: My personal input: CZE, you could default to the applied system in 0.815 AND make players able to disable it in the settings AND implement something like john suggested.

This thread should have a sticky if not already! :)

Jugan
12-04-2013, 10:49 AM
http://wizards.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/646