PDA

View Full Version : Triggered abilities is one thing, activated abilities must come back



escapeRoute
12-28-2013, 07:33 AM
As the title sais... one thing is the triggered abilities but the activated abilities must come back, end of story... this is not the game they promised...

CZE took away the prep fase... bad but we can live with it
CZE took away triggered abilities and then gave us back AT LEAST those who target... bad, really bad, but still we can live with it

but the activated abilities is another thing... instead of getting better this game is just becoming worse and worse every patch... and the last change was almost sneaked without much discussion on the forum...

seriously, what is going on here?

1) this is not the way to speed up games, it just doesnt work
2) its terribly counter intuitive to be able to anwer to some things and not being able to answer to other things
3) this is just not what we were promised

i made this thread hoping that people would speak and say "i dont like this change" to CZE... i actually hate the idea of some sort of "poll this idea out" but, in this case, i really feel its necessary... i didnt do this for the triggered abilities patch or for the prep fase... but, seriously, this one went too far... really and sadly :(

i convinced 2 friends to buy the slacker backer and i was planning on spending a lot of money on this... now i see myself only paying the vip program and doing pve stuf when im bored of other games... and thats really sad

also, i cant stop thinking that it was made on purpouse as the last of the stack changes so that people would have been angered for enough time to rage less over this one (the worse of all the changes).. and the timing of the christmas season too, when people would play less and so less people would notice was excellent also...

DackFayden
12-28-2013, 11:03 AM
The game is in alpha. Let them do alpha things like test out core mechanics. When you got the alpha email you saw the part about the game being in the kitchen

You're approaching CZE like they're the enemy here. They're not trying to sneak any changes by their supporters. They just want to improve on the formula and do something new. When we didn't like the triggered ability change they decided to try something a bit different. I get it, its not exactly the vision you signed up for, but it's in the kitchen.

If a chef is working and feels they can improve a recipe they need someone to taste test. Looks like CZE didn't higher actual testers instead they thought it'd be a good idea to invite supporters in the kitchen. And guess what they're cooking the food trying out different recipes, sometimes it works and sometimes(mostly) it doesn't.

A thread like this is good, because it expresses disapproval of the current recipe. Good idea on the thread, but bad excecution

Lawlschool
12-28-2013, 02:10 PM
Are the changes really ruining the experience this much for you? Like I asked in the other thread with the exact same premise, how many times have these changes, and solely these changes, caused you or your opponent to lose games where the only way to not-lose would have been to respond where the priority once was? I've yet to have a problem with these changes that I couldn't play around them without trouble, but maybe that's just me.

Nekrabyte
12-28-2013, 02:43 PM
i personally don't like the changes, but i don't think the sky is falling.... why i would like is for the client to be snappier, and the lag to be gone... that would be a HUGE change on the speed of the game. all these little changes are not helping... maybe removing them isn't hurting it as bad as people think, but i do know what its not doing... and that's helping.

Handsofevil
12-28-2013, 03:06 PM
escapeRoute, for once I agree with something you say. I noticed this while playing against the new Shin'hare transform card (forget his name, but he transforms twice). I couldn't respond to the last trigger with a Murder that I had in-hand. He was free to use the ability as much as he could with no response from me. Now that is an issue. I am a fan of both activated and triggered abilities going on the stack. I'd rather hit "pass" a few extra times a game to allow for more counterplay, even if it doesn't effect every game I play, or even most.

That being said, you seriously need to take a chill pill escapeRoute. Almost every post you make sounds like you're mad and entitled. Tone it down... Good discussion is important, witch-hunting isn't.

escapeRoute
12-28-2013, 03:14 PM
That being said, you seriously need to take a chill pill escapeRoute. Almost every post you make sounds like you're mad and entitled. Tone it down... Good discussion is important, witch-hunting isn't.

mmm... i guess i could use counting up to ten before writing a post once in a while

bofedy
12-28-2013, 04:20 PM
2) its terribly counter intuitive to be able to anwer to some things and not being able to answer to other things

I totally disagree with this. I think there should be some things you can not counter if you can counter everything what risk is their. I think its unfair on people who play creatures/1st move who have to take risk yet the people able to counter everything can lol and wait so they have no risk and cant make a wrong move. The current way thier is risk for every one and promotes an active game rather than a see and wait game.

The reason im not behind counter everything everytime is because if you can CZE will have to punish you hard to make it fair for people who act first as in if you dont have the right counter for something it will kill you instead of you cant counter it so it only hurts you a little and then you can counter it. this way there is an active game where your not geting punished for not having that counter card in hand ready for that monster card and lose because of it.

Hope this made sense i have a hard time put my words down on paper :P

Handsofevil
12-28-2013, 04:57 PM
mmm... i guess i could use counting up to ten before writing a post once in a while

I know I could sometimes as well, we all do it more than we'd like to admit :)

@bofedy, that's why MTG instituted "split-second" because people had the same argument. Though in favor of OP, "all-counter" decks are very rare in MTG even though there are tons of counters and instants. You say those who counter have no risk, but lets say I have 4 murders and 4 countermagics in my deck. That's only 8 answers. What if the opponent has 9 cards I want to counter? Or even more than 9? I run the risk of murdering a weaker card simply because it seems more threatening now. I know I've been guilty of that many times. I would say the current way is going too far towards one of the main things I hate about Hearthstone, no counterplay.

What you're suggesting in your second part is a complete redesign of the system, and we might as well remove countermagic and most quick-actions with that logic. The risk you talked about in part one is the fix to your proposed issue in your second part. If you don't have the right counter in hand, you lose. That's how it works. That could be because you used it, you've gotten unlucky and haven't drawn it, or you built your deck poorly against the opponents and are bound to lose because they have the better deck. Your suggestion sounds very non-punishing and way too easy for a competitive style game such as HEX.

Svenn
12-28-2013, 06:57 PM
I am really hoping that this is a temporary change for testing and they realize how bad this is. I loaded up the game for the first time in days and played for a few hours, and all I kept finding is that I had no chance to respond to half the stuff that was happening. That is TERRIBLE for a TCG.

Lawlschool
12-28-2013, 07:17 PM
I noticed this while playing against the new Shin'hare transform card (forget his name, but he transforms twice). I couldn't respond to the last trigger with a Murder that I had in-hand. He was free to use the ability as much as he could with no response from me. Now that is an issue.

One one hand, that does seem troubling. On the other, there's plenty of time to kill him before he transforms to the final stage and starts his rampage. That's one of the reasons I don't have a problem with the original priority changes: it should be obvious what your opponent is going to do, and you should be able to "preempt" any actions before they happen rather than "respond." I haven't had many problems or complaints with the changes, but I might just not have ran in to enough situations where they matter.

Handsofevil
12-28-2013, 08:31 PM
One one hand, that does seem troubling. On the other, there's plenty of time to kill him before he transforms to the final stage and starts his rampage.

In this particular case, I think it's smart to wait until he goes to sacrifice the last card to it, then Murder it. That way he's wasted quite a bit on it, and I come out ahead. Otherwise, especially in Shin'hare where you can play him, and the next turn have him fully transformed, I waste a murder on a lowly 1/1 with a very weak ability just in case he becomes strong. On both sides of the board, I am in favor of being able to respond to it last second.

bofedy
12-28-2013, 11:32 PM
In this particular case, I think it's smart to wait until he goes to sacrifice the last card to it, then Murder it. That way he's wasted quite a bit on it, and I come out ahead. Otherwise, especially in Shin'hare where you can play him, and the next turn have him fully transformed, I waste a murder on a lowly 1/1 with a very weak ability just in case he becomes strong. On both sides of the board, I am in favor of being able to respond to it last second.

This whats so damn annoying you dont want to waste a murder on him when he comes in well if he wins the game then its your fault clearly because you dident use it. Almost all the arguments (there is a few good ones) are that you want to use muder any time so its easyer for you. You can counter any card at one time if you dont then i think you deserve not to be able to stop it later for X reason.

Handsofevil
12-28-2013, 11:57 PM
Why not? That's the point of having a quick action. Might as well make everything only playable on your turn, and I'll play Hearthstone...

DackFayden
12-29-2013, 12:43 AM
In this particular case, I think it's smart to wait until he goes to sacrifice the last card to it, then Murder it. That way he's wasted quite a bit on it, and I come out ahead. Otherwise, especially in Shin'hare where you can play him, and the next turn have him fully transformed, I waste a murder on a lowly 1/1 with a very weak ability just in case he becomes strong. On both sides of the board, I am in favor of being able to respond to it last second.

When the rules to a game change then the same approach may not work.

You were aware that you could not respond to a transform once he had enough mana and troops to attain it. Therefore a preemptive approach was necessary, not the same wait till the last minute for MAX value

As a result the situation you're describing = Player made a mistake in the game. Not games fault

Lawlschool
12-29-2013, 12:59 AM
In this particular case, I think it's smart to wait until he goes to sacrifice the last card to it, then Murder it. That way he's wasted quite a bit on it, and I come out ahead. Otherwise, especially in Shin'hare where you can play him, and the next turn have him fully transformed, I waste a murder on a lowly 1/1 with a very weak ability just in case he becomes strong. On both sides of the board, I am in favor of being able to respond to it last second.

Yeah, that's marginally better, but it's not a "waste" to use removal on a powerful troop before it's powerful enough to wreck you, and before it actually wrecks you. The game's changed (slightly), adapt. You can very easily work around the change by, as I suggested, removing Hophiro earlier, even if doing so wouldn't have been optimal under the original priorities.

It was smart to wait until the last minute, but it's not smart to do so now. If you're losing to that, it's your fault, not the game's. It's one thing to complain because being unable to respond in certain situations breaks the game, but it's another to complain that it's not as "optimal" as it was before.

Handsofevil
12-29-2013, 01:00 AM
Yes, I can be aware of the rules. Though I didn't know this change before this situation, but that's partially my fault. But that doesn't give a reason for those rules. Please explain to me why we shouldn't be able to respond.

Lawlschool
12-29-2013, 01:14 AM
Yes, I can be aware of the rules. Though I didn't know this change before this situation, but that's partially my fault. But that doesn't give a reason for those rules. Please explain to me why we shouldn't be able to respond.

Because the Devs say so? Hell if I know, I don't design games, I just play them. There was a pretty lengthy article explaining the changes earlier this week or last, iirc. I'm not for or against the changes, I'm just against people refusing to attempt to adapt, or for getting hung up on how things were.

I don't think these changes "ruin" Hex as some have mentioned, there's still plenty of depth and fun. Tbh, I think the Hophiro example is a bug (seems to be an activated ability which ought to go on the stack), which isn't surprising given that these cards are new and this is Alpha.

You guys are way too quick to hate these changes, and some people are being a bit dramatic. Voicing concerns is fine, but there's no need to get overly upset. I get the frustration that comes from not knowing if a certain ability will trigger the priority giving you a chance to respond, it's happened to me a few times I'm sure, but rather than get upset and start claiming the game is going to hell, remember that Alpha is Alpha and this is the time to explore these changes. In one of the many threads that have popped up about this (it's almost becoming as bad as the mull/shard complaints), someone suggested a spreadsheet listing all the abilities that do or do not go on the stack. That's a great idea, as it's entirely possible, given how this is Alpha, that the Devs have over looked some abilities that don't trigger the stack but should.

Handsofevil
12-29-2013, 01:43 AM
I'm not refusing to adapt, I just think it's a poor choice. They encourage us to say that, so I am. And I've explained why I think it's bad.

As for activated abilities going on the stack, I ran into an issue with Roostasaur today. His ability didn't go on the stack, but I had to pass-priority every single time. So no idea what happened there.

I'm not quick to hate changes. I'm quick to voice my opinion on a major change that I think hurts HEX. I've been the one to say that we should try different mulligan systems. And I'm not saying it's going to hell, but not being able to respond is one of the main reasons I don't like Hearthstone, so I'd rather not see that happen.

Edit: I missed the word "not" right at the beginning... I'm a noob.

Lawlschool
12-29-2013, 02:32 AM
I'm refusing to adapt, I just think it's a poor choice. They encourage us to say that, so I am. And I've explained why I think it's bad.

As for activated abilities going on the stack, I ran into an issue with Roostasaur today. His ability didn't go on the stack, but I had to pass-priority every single time. So no idea what happened there.

I'm not quick to hate changes. I'm quick to voice my opinion on a major change that I think hurts HEX. I've been the one to say that we should try different mulligan systems. And I'm not saying it's going to hell, but not being able to respond is one of the main reasons I don't like Hearthstone, so I'd rather not see that happen.

I generalized at the end, was addressing the anti-changes people as a whole. And you should adapt, at least for the time being.

IMO it's difficult to say these changes hurt Hex without giving examples, since the whole reason the changes were implement was because the Devs believed the changes would only have minor impacts on the game. Most of the arguments against the changes boil down to "Removing responses is bad because it limits interaction, and limiting interaction is bad," which isn't wrong, but it's not really saying anything the Devs don't already know. Voicing displeasure with the changes also doesn't add much to the conversation since it's just personal preference (again, the Devs undoubtedly realized some people would take issue with the changes). Actually showing how the changes negatively affect Hex is the way to go if you want the changes reversed, like the Hophiro example you pointed out. I'm fairly certain the (reasonable) QQ over WRD's ability is what got them to add targeted triggered abilities back to the stack, maybe pointing out more examples of where the changes create unreasonably negative play experiences will get the Devs to seriously reconsider the changes.

Handsofevil
12-29-2013, 03:09 AM
Actually showing how the changes negatively affect Hex is the way to go if you want the changes reversed,

So, would you like me to list every single instance where I would much prefer being able to respond? To me that seems completely unnecessary and a waste of time. I could point at Roostasaur, someone is about to sack it for health, I murder in response. Hophiro targets one of my creatures and I want to Stoneskin it. I can go on and on, but you get my point. If you require entirely preemptively dealing with an issue, you better include more ways to deal with them, otherwise why run any at all? Because I'll run out of muder/extintion/innerconflic/countermagic/etc LONG before you run out of threats.

escapeRoute
12-29-2013, 03:51 AM
Bofedy, the problem with ur assumptions is that they come from an aggro player who hate to see his plan disupted... in games designed like this creatures are both the strongest type of card AND the most fragile kind of card... the most cost effective way to kill somebody but yet the easiest threat u can deal with, cause there are so many ways to kill em, prevent em from doing theyr thing

A burn or a murder are a one shot thing, u play, u get the effect, they are gone... creatures are payied for and then u can possibly get even double, triple or 4 time theyr cost in damage to your opponent...

yes, spells may seems op from time to time BUT that is a wrong impression.... a control deck can easily be killed by a mere 2/2 in game cause the opponent doesnt have enough answers and have to choose to keep his murder for something bigger while u keep hitting him "in da face" bringing him low

playing creatures is not that much of a risk, its an easy and sure way to bring a threath while a spell based deck IS FORCED to wait by the very nature of the cards at his disposal... he just CANT play his shit cause any of them MUST be playied at the right time... creature decks can make mistakes in timing (ofc it depends on the situation, but mistakes there can be more forgiving)... spell decks cant

that is theyr risk... u play 3 for a 3/2 with crush and there u go.. u can take 3/6/9/12 damages from it and maybe even a card of mine (creature)... if i have a counterspell i can only take one card with it... nothing more...

these changes makes the game more and more creature centric.. and we allready have plenty of creature centric games... pokemon, duel of champions, hearthstone, yu gi oh and so on... whats the point in another one?

it may not seems much but this just shifted the balance of power to someone who allready had the advantage (not with just an incompleted set1... but with set 2 and 3 probably) making spells less powerfull than creatures is never a good thing if u want variety in ur meta...

yes, u can make creature based control decks... but then, again, we allready have plenty of games that work that way.. i hoped this one to be different... and its not anymore

Malakili
12-29-2013, 04:15 AM
Are the changes really ruining the experience this much for you? Like I asked in the other thread with the exact same premise, how many times have these changes, and solely these changes, caused you or your opponent to lose games where the only way to not-lose would have been to respond where the priority once was? I've yet to have a problem with these changes that I couldn't play around them without trouble, but maybe that's just me.

This line of thought is actually a big problem. The fact is that it fundamentally changes things. It isn't about single cases. It's about what it does to the design space, what kinds of cards will be favored in such an environment and the fact that it takes away interactivity.

It isn't just about being able to win games - anyone who cares enough to learn the ruleset and be competitive will learn to do so no matter what the ruleset is. It's a question of whether or not the game is the type of game I want to spend that kind of time on. The steady march away from the ability to react to essentially everything has made me begin to question whether they are really devoted to creating the type of card game that they said they were last May/June. That's a real concern, regardless of whether or not I can say "I've lost X number of games because I couldn't react to an ability" because it isn't just about winning and losing games.

Gwaer
12-29-2013, 04:23 AM
Lawlschool isn't who you have to convince about the changes. It's the devs. Voicing your concerns and opinions in whatever way you see fit if it doesn't break the CoC, then go for it. I agree that his definition of what is persuasive is nonsense.

Handsofevil
12-29-2013, 04:38 AM
I will say this, unless PvE blows me out of the water, if the changes continue the way they are, with removing response options, then I will look at offloading my account and cutting my losses. One of the reasons I love this game is because it's like MTG, where we have the stack, and most things hit the stack. I was okay, though not happy, with the original change to triggered abilities. But it's now affecting activated abilities. Where does it stop?

escapeRoute
12-29-2013, 04:46 AM
as allways in these situations the problme is that they are trying to cater to too many people and that doing so they are risking to please non of them...

either u please the magic crowd (and u where very likely to hit magic really hard with that) being able to get SOME casual in the process OR u cater to the hearthstone crowd (very unlikely, since they are happy with theyr product... while mtgo users are not) and get SOME magic players in the process...

they want both the chicken and the egg (as we say here) and thats really unlickely to happen

Nekrabyte
12-29-2013, 08:47 AM
they want both the chicken and the egg (as we say here) and thats really unlickely to happen

that is kinda how i feel right now... its like they keep saying they want to please all the fans that want the most in depth game possible, and then they keep taking away depth.... it shouldn't be this weird combo of both, or else they'll lose more fans than they expect. in this current age of gaming, there are a few ways to go.... either you can be a juggernaut company, and have the resources to please sooooo many different groups of people that it wont matter if you alienate a group. a second option is that you can just straight up cater to casuals... smaller companies often need to do this, or else they won't generate any revenue, and the last option, which is ALWAYS the one i hope for (and i hope they stick to) is to make a game for the hardcores... the pve is a great option for drawing in a casual crowd to hopefully bring in a few bucks... but i REALLY REALLY feel that this game is really meant for the hardcore, or at least people who mostly want the hardcore 'respond to anything' rules.

my $.02

Vengus
12-29-2013, 09:54 AM
I am not happy at all with these changes. If they keep it up like this they can just aswell remove the whole pass priority thing and go the Hearthstone route. I was hoping this game would be a deep card game similiar to the old TCGs, not a casual TCG like Hearthstone. If CRZ keeps dumbing the game down like this I will have no other choice but to request a refund, because I didn't pay $250 for a Hearthstone clone.

Lawlschool
12-29-2013, 10:15 AM
So, would you like me to list every single instance where I would much prefer being able to respond? To me that seems completely unnecessary and a waste of time. I could point at Roostasaur, someone is about to sack it for health, I murder in response. Hophiro targets one of my creatures and I want to Stoneskin it. I can go on and on, but you get my point. If you require entirely preemptively dealing with an issue, you better include more ways to deal with them, otherwise why run any at all? Because I'll run out of muder/extintion/innerconflic/countermagic/etc LONG before you run out of threats.

You can't Stoneskin Hophiro. Stoneskin only targets cards, not abilities (kinda pedantic, sorry).

I really don't care what you do, or how you in particular feel about the changes (not to be harsh, you seem like a cool dude). Like Gwaer said, you guys don't need to convince me the changes are bad, you need to convince the Devs. IMO, a handful of people saying "this game is going to hell" over changes the Devs believed would have a minor impact on the overall game isn't particularly convincing. Plenty of people complain about the resource system / mull, yet I don't think most of us would agree that those things should be changed solely because people are complaining. The Devs instituted these changes knowing full well it would upset some people, but they did so because they believe it best for the game they are trying to create.

There's nothing wrong with saying you disagree with the changes or you don't like them, or with voicing your opinions on the changes. I'm not saying don't do that, I'm saying show the devs specific interactions that have been seriously harmed by these changes, because they may have missed something. Maybe there are more broken interactions than they anticipated, or maybe some cards (like Hophiro) aren't working as intended.

I don't think saying how the changes affect the game overall is particularly productive, as they probably already know exactly how the changes affect the game, and they're ok with that. They've acknowledged that the changes do reduce some interaction (and with that, skill), but they believe those changes are necessary for the overall health of the game they want to make. Unfortunately, for some of you that means this isn't the game you want to play, and undoubtedly some of you will be alienated by these changes, but my guess is that CZE believes the changes will help retain more people than they would without the changes.

As for your last point, if the game has dragged on so long that you've run out of counters to threats, either you're doing something wrong or they're doing something right. I don't see how the preemptive/responsive difference matters in this situation. "If you can't remove everything why remove anything?" makes absolutely no sense. There are plenty of reasons to still remove threats, I don't see your point.

escapeRoute
12-29-2013, 10:30 AM
ofc they do it cause they think they will get more players than they loos.. thinking otherwise its impossible... but doing so
1) they are betraying those who supported them in the first place cause they promised "a" and promised the game would never be "c" and now we allready have "b".... wich is bad from a personal point of view.... we can argue that they may not care, and thats fine, but it doesnt make this less true.
2)they are trying to catch the white rabbit... u dont alienate ur market to chase a new bigger one... ive made the star wars galaxies example many and many tines now... look at the stats on twitch... hearthstone its allready too famous and allready have too much of a name to take the casual crowd away from it (also hearthstone will allow people to REALLY farm pvp boosters, something that casual players LOVE)... this game already cant be the league of legends of online TCGs... but it can be the dota of the situation... it can accomplish that very easily... and doing what they are doing they are risking to loose both chances...

look at paradox games... they were a small company with not much money and they had 2 roads they could follow... either they tried to create a strategy game that would try to be a starcraft/C&C clone to gather to the mass or they could aim for theyr little share of the market, the share that no one cared about because it was smaller... the hardcore one... making a huge and deep grand strategy game... they made Europa Universalis... and now they are a company big enough to produce even 10 games at the time and they totally OWN the hardcore strategy market, and expanded with magika, mount&blade, vikings (a first person medieval "shooter") and so on...

Lawlschool
12-29-2013, 10:52 AM
For once, I agree with you, escape. They are starting to walk a thin line between catering to their original supporters and attempting to make a game with more casual appeal. I still don't think the current changes are as big a deal as some of you do, but I can definitely agree that continuing to make these changes could be problematic.

Hex is in a bit of a tricky position. They're an oldschool game at heart in a market that is catering more and more to "casuals." They're trying to strike a balance between the oldschool and the newschool, but there might never exist a perfect balance. Which is one reason PvE is so great. They could probably implement more player-friendly changes in the PvE side, while retaining more depth in PvP. PvP is about player interaction, while PvE seems to be about overcoming obstacles. These sort of changes in PvE would simply alter how you overcame an obstacle, but in PvP they alter how you interact with your opponent.

Vengus
12-29-2013, 11:19 AM
For once, I agree with you, escape. They are starting to walk a thin line between catering to their original supporters and attempting to make a game with more casual appeal. I still don't think the current changes are as big a deal as some of you do, but I can definitely agree that continuing to make these changes could be problematic.

Hex is in a bit of a tricky position. They're an oldschool game at heart in a market that is catering more and more to "casuals." They're trying to strike a balance between the oldschool and the newschool, but there might never exist a perfect balance. Which is one reason PvE is so great. They could probably implement more player-friendly changes in the PvE side, while retaining more depth in PvP. PvP is about player interaction, while PvE seems to be about overcoming obstacles. These sort of changes in PvE would simply alter how you overcame an obstacle, but in PvP they alter how you interact with your opponent.
There's no point in catering to the casuals because Hearthstone is already doing that. The deep mechanics of HEX is what seperated it from Hearthstone. By going more and more the Hearthstone route they will start to compete with it, and I don't think CRZ can compete with the nearly unlimited resources Blizzard has.

escapeRoute
12-29-2013, 11:24 AM
well. before the changes they werent competing with M&M:doc... right now they are dangerously close to doing that... i dont know if they will win that battle or if they wont (maybe they will)... but either way why competing with them if the mtgo audience is BEGGING for a functioning mtg like game since mtgo is fucking broken? for half the price? with pve? and a better mana system?

they are moving away from what is practically a won battle to fight others with uncertain results (with MMDOC) and with certain defeat (hearthstone)... i dont get it...

TheFallen
12-29-2013, 12:37 PM
First of all sorry for my bad English.

I personally think the "simplifying changes" made so far are terrible. Some of you already stated the reasons. Will those changes attract more "casual players"? May be, but many of the high tier KS pledges are old school MTG players, like me. I bought 5 pledges for $1500, and was really fascinated about HEX, but now I'm really worried if the game will become too simple, offering far less strategic possibilities than MTG.

The prep phase plays are very important and interesting ("I cast my removal spell during your prep phase and not during my turn, to force you to cast countermagic before you draw, spend your resources…").

The triggered abilities change closes the door to any stifle like card (but is not too bad), but the activated abilities simplification is just terrible.

I also think the game should become much more simple to be appropriate for casual, new to TCG players. Even with the actual changes, the game is too complex to casual players. And making more changes would cause many of the kickstarter backers (along with many other players) feel betrayed.

I will probably play HEX anyway, but please CZE don’t downgrade HEX into a hearthstone, revert the changes and maintain the line that kept most of us excited.

Handsofevil
12-29-2013, 06:18 PM
Lawlschool, I wasn't saying "if I can't counter all, why counter any", that's silly. I'm saying that I liked the ability to play smart with my counters. I'll switch to more aggro decks if I have to be preemptive about my control, but that's already giving all the power to the aggro deck. Part of this is just feel of play, but I will say I do not like it.

You've said a couple times that I need to show specific interactions where it's bad. Why not show specific interactions where it's good? I've explained why I don't like it. If you can't extrapolate instances where it's applied, then you don't know the game well enough.

As for stoneskin, I was mistaken. I've never actually played the card, just seen it played so I've never paid a ton of attention to the wording.

Lawlschool
12-29-2013, 09:49 PM
Lawlschool, I wasn't saying "if I can't counter all, why counter any", that's silly. I'm saying that I liked the ability to play smart with my counters. I'll switch to more aggro decks if I have to be preemptive about my control, but that's already giving all the power to the aggro deck. Part of this is just feel of play, but I will say I do not like it.

You've said a couple times that I need to show specific interactions where it's bad. Why not show specific interactions where it's good? I've explained why I don't like it. If you can't extrapolate instances where it's applied, then you don't know the game well enough.

As for stoneskin, I was mistaken. I've never actually played the card, just seen it played so I've never paid a ton of attention to the wording.

The change still lets you play smart with counters, just not as conservatively as you could before. It's the difference between preempting what you think your opponent will do and responding to what they actually do. Still requires strategy, but you can't play as conservatively anymore. Like in the Hophiro example, you could have killed him at any point, the change just prevents you from killing him at the most optimal point (though I still think that example is a bug). Another example that I've run in to is the Scrivener / Pally combo and using Burn. Before, you could wait for Pally to drop and then Burn him. Now, if your opp drops a Scrivener, he becomes the prime Burn target. The old way was definitely more favorable for Burn, but the new way doesn't totally screw over Burn. And he's still susceptible to a Persecute or Murder, or Burn to the Ground.

Also, if you feel that Aggro is improved by these changes, then by all means play Aggro. Lots of people have been complaining about the dominance of Control right now, so maybe these changes are actually good if they start shifting the balance away from Control dominance. Or at least, some people will welcome the changes.

And I don't need to show examples where it's good because that's not what I'm arguing. You guys are saying it's bad, you need to explain why it's bad. Most of you don't get much further than "It's bad because it limits interaction" which I don't think is news or constrictive at this point. I'm suggesting ways that I think will improve your arguments, I'm not trying to argue against you. I'm also not trying to convince anyone it's "good," so I don't really see the point in showing where the changes work. Not to mention, the changes aren't to improve game play, they're to improve game speed, which they obviously do. The argument here is whether improving game speed / flow is worth decreasing some level of interactivity. The devs seem to think yes, y'all seem to think no.

DackFayden
12-30-2013, 12:55 AM
The change still lets you play smart with counters, just not as conservatively as you could before. It's the difference between preempting what you think your opponent will do and responding to what they actually do. Still requires strategy, but you can't play as conservatively anymore. Like in the Hophiro example, you could have killed him at any point, the change just prevents you from killing him at the most optimal point (though I still think that example is a bug). Another example that I've run in to is the Scrivener / Pally combo and using Burn. Before, you could wait for Pally to drop and then Burn him. Now, if your opp drops a Scrivener, he becomes the prime Burn target. The old way was definitely more favorable for Burn, but the new way doesn't totally screw over Burn. And he's still susceptible to a Persecute or Murder, or Burn to the Ground.

Also, if you feel that Aggro is improved by these changes, then by all means play Aggro. Lots of people have been complaining about the dominance of Control right now, so maybe these changes are actually good if they start shifting the balance away from Control dominance. Or at least, some people will welcome the changes.

And I don't need to show examples where it's good because that's not what I'm arguing. You guys are saying it's bad, you need to explain why it's bad. Most of you don't get much further than "It's bad because it limits interaction" which I don't think is news or constrictive at this point. I'm suggesting ways that I think will improve your arguments, I'm not trying to argue against you. I'm also not trying to convince anyone it's "good," so I don't really see the point in showing where the changes work. Not to mention, the changes aren't to improve game play, they're to improve game speed, which they obviously do. The argument here is whether improving game speed / flow is worth decreasing some level of interactivity. The devs seem to think yes, y'all seem to think no.

I really think your getting to the real/constructive argument here

A different system is different therefore it plays differently. Saying it affects how good cards are is actually pointless to talk about since people will just learn to play cards differently.

I feel the real question is: Was the trade-off in interactivity worth the speed and Fluidity.

For speed I say no, but for fluidity I'll say a resounding yes.

Handsofevil
12-30-2013, 02:23 AM
I feel the real question is: Was the trade-off in interactivity worth the speed and Fluidity.

For speed I say no, but for fluidity I'll say a resounding yes.

I say no, and every time I've given a reason it's not good enough. Is feel not a reason? Am I the only one not bothered by having to hit pass-priority a few extra times? And why reduce gameplay rather than implementing an easier way to pass. "Skip rest of turn", or "hold to skip phases" has been suggested in other forums.

escapeRoute
12-30-2013, 03:29 AM
I say no, and every time I've given a reason it's not good enough. Is feel not a reason? Am I the only one not bothered by having to hit pass-priority a few extra times? And why reduce gameplay rather than implementing an easier way to pass. "Skip rest of turn", or "hold to skip phases" has been suggested in other forums.

Because they said they dont want to do it before changing others thigs, hell if i know why...

And no, its not working any differently from a speed point of view... Nothing that 3 damn shortcuts wouldnt have fixed better, and that makes these changes more and more disturbing

Also, the way cards interacts are important... People where crying over control decks not cause control decks where strong but cause people where blind.... We didnt have all the cards (amd just with a few new ones uve allready seen how the meta can shift) and people where plainly bad... I've seen people in this alpha starting 2 times in a tournament woth only one shard and then complaining of mana screw.... Ive seen people playing 2 creatures after they saw that, on turn 4, with blood shard and 4 free mana i didnt play a single thing.... And by the way wild ramp was still pretty strong but people got bored and stopped playing it...

Anyway, feel is everything and they are making this game feeling like shit... They could aswell take away quick actions entirely and give us traps like hearthstone, cause thats the next step and we are not far at all from that point since we cant already answer to half of the abilities thst the opponent player use

Quasari
12-30-2013, 09:00 AM
The game play needs to run at a smooth pace by default, or it will never become popular as a spectator esport. While a custom stop system will speed it up quite a bit, there are a number of abilities that don't need to be on the stack. There are a number of effects you can not stop, no matter how you respond. Having the ability to respond to these actions is frivolous in this case. I feel the change needs refining, but it's a step to making this game a popular esport.

DackFayden
12-30-2013, 11:07 AM
I say no, and every time I've given a reason it's not good enough. Is feel not a reason? Am I the only one not bothered by having to hit pass-priority a few extra times? And why reduce gameplay rather than implementing an easier way to pass. "Skip rest of turn", or "hold to skip phases" has been suggested in other forums.

I've read your post you provide a lot of good reasons. But one thing that gets me about your post is it seems you understand it's a different system that plays differently and also how most complaints stem from people just being used to mtg, yet a large of portion of your reasoning stems from what was lost from the old system.

Saying I can no longer respond to X, but I would like to is actually a hard statement to defend and use to prove the point the new system is worse. Its like when your playing a game and you lose to a turn 3 fist. The knee-jerk reaction is to say fist OP, which may/maynot be right. Maybe if you talked more about the pros/cons of the new system it would seem like you're actually considering the new system and not just being conservative.

The new system DOES accomplish what it sets out to do. I like your point about how there are better solutions to speed, but it's muddled in complaints that seem like "I can't do X anymore" that, again, doesn't get the idea across.

I like your general point about increasing player interaction. And I agree, but I am also aware a majority of my gripe with the interaction changes is because I know I USED TO HAVE the ability to interact. Like for example if resource drops used the stack, then all of a sudden didn't then my knee-jerk reaction would be "Turn 4 wildroot dancers get a FREE trigger of the pump, #burnSoWeak #BalanceIssues".

Overall I think your criticism of the lackluster speed solution and Interaction loss are valid and strong ground for a review of the system, but you might wan't to shy away from talking about balancing issues.

ossuary
12-30-2013, 11:41 AM
Have I mentioned before how much I hate the twitterization of our language? :)

#It'sActuallyAnOctothorpe

escapeRoute
01-01-2014, 06:25 AM
it wasnt a different system, it wasnt sold as a different system... it became one now and its also a worse system...

RobHaven
01-02-2014, 08:02 AM
Off topic:

You can't Stoneskin Hophiro. Stoneskin only targets cards, not abilities (kinda pedantic, sorry).
1) I wouldn't say it's pedantic; in a game where knowing the finer points of the rules is crucial, your point is an important distinction to make.
2) Stoneskin ~ assuming it appears exactly as seen on Hex.TCGBrowser.com ~ should have the A capitalized to clearly show it's referring to a card of the Action type. Obviously any similarly written card should do the same.

On topic:
Giving me fewer options for reaction/interaction is giving me fewer choices to make. I don't think the removal of an opportunity for choice is a good thing in a strategy game.

Yoss
01-02-2014, 03:07 PM
I'm still hoping they'll make a keyword for bypassing the stack, then they will have to make the decision to give the super-strong Split Second ability on a case by case basis, not just give it blindly to entire classes of cards. Similarly, the rest of us will be able to debate whether specific abilities should or shouldn't have the keyword.

ossuary
01-02-2014, 03:44 PM
Agreed. I know it means more work and balancing, but it will be better for the game overall. Make a visible keyword that says "this ability cannot be responded to" and there will be no confusion or argument over whether or not it uses the stack. And while it would be more work to put that in place, it would also mean a MUCH easier time balancing things, because all you have to do if an effect or ability is too strong is take away the keyword and put it on the stack, so we can respond to it.

It's a much more elegant solution than just tossing a whole swath of phases or response types out the window.

DackFayden
01-02-2014, 08:54 PM
Agreed. I know it means more work and balancing, but it will be better for the game overall. Make a visible keyword that says "this ability cannot be responded to" and there will be no confusion or argument over whether or not it uses the stack. And while it would be more work to put that in place, it would also mean a MUCH easier time balancing things, because all you have to do if an effect or ability is too strong is take away the keyword and put it on the stack, so we can respond to it.

It's a much more elegant solution than just tossing a whole swath of phases or response types out the window.

What's wrong with the way they currently have it? You know as a rule for the game that applies to all cards? In a rule book I'd imagine it'd read something like...

Rule X.Y: Only abilities that declare a target use the stack

Seems more elegant than placing more text on a card. And even more importantly remember this is a change CZE implemented to a game they're designing. I think CZE is wise enough to not create cards that abuse their own rules.

ossuary
01-02-2014, 09:28 PM
I think CZE is wise enough to not create cards that abuse their own rules.

Wild Root Dancer. Righteous Paladin. Sadistic Castigator. Living Totem. Stargazer. The Incantations. These are all cards that CZE designed based on the old rules, that are SIGNIFICANTLY stronger under the new rules. Living Totem can buff itself completely out of range of any burn spell with no chance to respond. You can use triggered and activated abilities that don't target anything to pump 5 counters onto an Incantation the same turn you play it, giving your opponent no opportunity to do anything about it.

This is not elegant. It's overbearing, reactionary, and unbalancing. It's a back-alley operation. It chopping off your leg to stop the frostbite in your toe. The implementation has also introduced a NUMBER of bugs into the system, aside from the card imbalances it created, which also suggests it was a rush job (at least from the engineers' side of things), not the careful, long-considered adjustment they are trying to sell it as.

The reason creating a new keyword and actually balancing the cards around it is more elegant is because it would actually WORK. The speed and flow could be increased for abilities that get used all the time but don't decide the fate of the game (convenience speed improvements), but balance and design space would not be impacted. In fact, having that "split second" keyword would actually increase design space, because it would give them the ability to make a very occasional powerful card with a good effect that DOES skip the stack.

But that should be a rare and special card... not every single effect that just happens to not need to choose a target. It's too much. It changes too many interactions in a negative, unfun way, and it takes away from the intuitiveness and elegance of the game as a whole.

DackFayden
01-03-2014, 12:55 AM
Wild Root Dancer. Righteous Paladin. Sadistic Castigator. Living Totem. Stargazer. The Incantations. These are all cards that CZE designed based on the old rules, that are SIGNIFICANTLY stronger under the new rules. Living Totem can buff itself completely out of range of any burn spell with no chance to respond. You can use triggered and activated abilities that don't target anything to pump 5 counters onto an Incantation the same turn you play it, giving your opponent no opportunity to do anything about it.

This is not elegant. It's overbearing, reactionary, and unbalancing. It's a back-alley operation. It chopping off your leg to stop the frostbite in your toe. The implementation has also introduced a NUMBER of bugs into the system, aside from the card imbalances it created, which also suggests it was a rush job (at least from the engineers' side of things), not the careful, long-considered adjustment they are trying to sell it as.

The reason creating a new keyword and actually balancing the cards around it is more elegant is because it would actually WORK. The speed and flow could be increased for abilities that get used all the time but don't decide the fate of the game (convenience speed improvements), but balance and design space would not be impacted. In fact, having that "split second" keyword would actually increase design space, because it would give them the ability to make a very occasional powerful card with a good effect that DOES skip the stack.

But that should be a rare and special card... not every single effect that just happens to not need to choose a target. It's too much. It changes too many interactions in a negative, unfun way, and it takes away from the intuitiveness and elegance of the game as a whole.

You know it is alpha. And if they do stick with these changes they will either decide to keep those cards at their current power level or tweak them. If they decide the power level of the cards you mentioned is fine, then that's that. That's the game they have created.

They've probably seen countless post on forums of complaints/effects of the system. They (I'm pretty sure) know cards like castigator/ancestors chosen/living totem have more/less power in the new system. But they have a better vision of the overall set and game, if they decide that's where they want the power of those cards, then that's the game. It'd fall on players to use the cards at their new powerlevel.

You are right, I've seen a lot of inconsistency with the new rules (prep phase/beginning of turn bugs) which does indicate a rush job. In the patch notes and (few) responses they gave they made it clear they were going for a rules change to the core system, not just to a couple cards. For example if they said all creatures with power greater than 6 can't be countered, would you want that printed as a keyword on all creatures with power > 6 or would it be superfluous?

I think its good that you're pointing out the changes in the system and card powerlevels, but I don't think introducing a 'split second' mechanic is the solution. I think people are more okay that #ThisIsntMagic and don't expect a complete mirror of rules, just some derivatives. In a sense you're correct, making the sweeping change to ability-stack interaction was like chopping off a leg when just the toes where frostbitten. I think we agree that if they were increasing just speed of play then there were *possibly*(i know little programming) easier ways to do it, but I'm okay with the changes since the core gameplay is still fun&interactive, little was actually lost. Players don't decide card balance the game creators do. If they decide the want pumps to be stronger, then that is that. Just adapt