PDA

View Full Version : Any recent news on Chests?



Axle
05-05-2015, 02:09 AM
"Though we packed many new features and big improvements into this latest update, chests didn’t make it into this patch. We’re making good progress and you will see them in a future feature patch. Unfortunately, for now, they’re still locked though you can continue to use Wheels of Fate on them as normal."

From the Arena launch. Talk seems to be shifted to hyping up set 3 now, which is perfectly fine, but Chests haven't been mentioned for awhile when it seemed like they just barely missed the set 2 launch from Cory talks before and this here.

Is there any news of a chest release before the summer set 3 launch? If nothing happens between now and set 3, we would be going without content for around 4-5 months since Arena =S.

hammer
05-05-2015, 02:15 AM
"Though we packed many new features and big improvements into this latest update, chests didn’t make it into this patch. We’re making good progress and you will see them in a future feature patch. Unfortunately, for now, they’re still locked though you can continue to use Wheels of Fate on them as normal."

From the Arena launch. Talk seems to be shifted to hyping up set 3 now, which is perfectly fine, but Chests haven't been mentioned for awhile when it seemed like they just barely missed the set 2 launch from Cory talks before and this here.

Is there any news of a chest release before the summer set 3 launch? If nothing happens between now and set 3, we would be going without content for around 4-5 months since Arena =S.

I believe the latest update was chests with Set 3 patch.

Axle
05-05-2015, 02:41 AM
Meh. Not a fan of their strategy of releasing everything at once. The wait till set 3 will be long. This game can't really afford to have such a long content drought. Hopefully everything goes smoothly for the set 3 release.

ossuary
05-05-2015, 04:22 AM
People who don't understand how development and testing work always say that, that they'd rather see small bits released over shorter periods of time. What they don't understand is that because of how programming and testing work, doing smaller content patches actually takes far more resources than doing a single large one. You would actually increase the total amount of time to get all the features by pushing them out one at a time, then going back to start on the next feature, testing it, making sure it doesn't break the existing code, etc. You get a shorter total development cycle by cramming as many features as your coding and testing teams are able to cope with into a single content patch.

Axle
05-05-2015, 04:36 AM
Doesn't change the consequences of pushing everything at once and then people quickly getting burned out of it like we're seeing with Arena right now as in game numbers, reddit activity numbers and forum numbers are dropping to a third. And we're still possibly getting nothing for another 2-3 months. We need more events at least.

They've got experienced developers and managers. They've got a schedule. But you don't seriously think 3 more months of no content is going to go well? The idea of it really bothers me. If they have something planned before set 3 to keep the community going, that would be good. And not VIP, that doesn't help that at all really.

And for cramming things for their test team..well I assume they don't really have a dedicated testing team when Chris Woods was going through the Frost Arena AI battles himself mostly before the Arena Test Server. Sounds like they have a lot of people doing multiple jobs at once. I'd just like to see more of the test server. Not just for set 3, but for the chest drop items, dungeons when they're a bit further along, doublebacks, etc. Certainly it worked well for Arena. Haven't heard anything about their plans for that since then though. Obviously they've already considered this so me saying this means nothing, but I'm just saying it how I think.

plaguedealer
05-05-2015, 06:14 AM
My guess is the we will see set 3 in mid June and additional pve content after that (didnt know chests with set 3). I understand that the development procss will takes time and I am fine with it given they are adding new key words, etc.

Hopefully we will continue to get more set 3 spoilers for the Friday update. However, I really want to see more pve spoilers/discussion, just so I know it is getting somewhat close to being released after set 3.

Thrawn
05-05-2015, 06:39 AM
Soon™

Hatts
05-05-2015, 07:19 AM
People who only have experience with the waterfall development method always say large feature dumps are best. What they don't understand is that releasing smaller updates more often allows for rapid feedback and iteration.

ossuary
05-05-2015, 08:33 AM
People who only have experience with the waterfall development method always say large feature dumps are best. What they don't understand is that releasing smaller updates more often allows for rapid feedback and iteration.

And if it were a process that required enduser feedback, that would be relevant. However, since the entirety of the development process in this case is internal (enduser only sees the final product), that's not the case.

Smaller updates are perfectly fine for a process that is going to be iterated on and changed constantly. And internally, that does happen. But externally, only completed builds are released, aside from bugfix patches. New content comes out when it's done, not every time a feature is iterated on or various aspects are in testing. To clean those iterated pieces up to allow them to push them out to the public each time one piece is ready (assuming 1 piece is even POSSIBLE to release without other dependencies, which is also not always the case) would take far more backend work than to just hold all the releases until they're ready to go in one package.

I'm a programmer and business analyst professionally... don't mistake my general comments directed at laymen as a lack of understanding of the core concepts. :)

AdamAoE2
05-05-2015, 10:38 AM
As somebody who works in Quality Assurance for a software company, I fully empathize with HexEnt releasing software builds at the rate they do.

"We released chests, and it somehow broke the tutorial."

ossuary
05-05-2015, 10:43 AM
Yeah, you just never know when one line of code is going to completely screw something up you didn't even know was related.

Saeijou
05-05-2015, 10:47 AM
Open the testservers! :)

Khendral
05-05-2015, 11:06 AM
Well, in November's Q&A Cory said that Asynch was expected to come in December and best 2/3 in Proving Grounds was almost done...haven't heard a single thing about both features since then.
Ps: things will be done when they're done, not when Cory wishes/expects them to be :D

Mokog
05-05-2015, 11:16 AM
Test servers would be nice but I think Hex is wanting to keep those loot tables under wraps until the reveal. A public test server would either expose those tables before their liking OR cause them to have to refresh those tables (using more resources). It would be easier to do a closed test with users under NDA than to put the feature on a public test server from my layman's POV.

Xexist
05-05-2015, 11:37 AM
Content is actually coming out TOO fast for me lately lol. That is more a testament to how little I have to play than anything else though.

*Let me reiterate actually. Sets are coming out too fast for me. PVE content not so much :D

Saeijou
05-05-2015, 11:38 AM
Content is actually coming out TOO fast for me lately lol. That is more a testament to how little I have to play than anything else though.

*Let me reiterate actually. Sets are coming out too fast for me. PVE content not so much :D

i hear ya... still no playset of set2! :/

cehu
05-05-2015, 12:05 PM
another type of tournament still no ranked ladder..maybe we can also see set 4 before anything

Lukezors
05-05-2015, 06:52 PM
At my company we actually switched from big releases with lots of features to smaller releases just being one feature each. The benefits are that smaller features aren't held up by bigger ones that end up taking a long time. It's a lot easier for our QA team to focus on one thing at a time and it's more obvious what causes the bugs they find during testing.

Mokog
05-06-2015, 02:39 PM
I think this rolls back to What Oss mentioned about the relationship of the patches to features. It maybe easier to develop features in smaller batches but from the currently available information, patches for Hex can be unwieldy to release. Plus, don't they have to localize every content patch anyway? Every new update has to be able to release to the existing regions in multiple languages.

Thrawn
05-06-2015, 03:09 PM
i hear ya... still no playset of set2! :/

It's not intended for you to collect a full set before the next set is released. Cards would have almost no value if your average player had a full set, or even close to it, of every set before the next one was released.

strylght
05-06-2015, 03:13 PM
It's not intended for you to collect a full set before the next set is released. Cards would have almost no value if your average player had a full set, or even close to it, of every set before the next one was released.

Right, but who wants to be an average player?! ;)

Blare731
05-06-2015, 03:31 PM
Yeah I mean I can't see many reasons to hold back. If the feature was going to be in the bigger patch, you already accounted for the Dev Time for it, so you aren't adding much more but compiling that feature into a patch. Honestly, I think it would do them good to have some features released in smaller patches and then big things like SETS or PvE Content in larger patches that take more time.

You can look at the failure to do this from the game Wildstar. It was fun, sure, but they had major bugs that prevented daily content to be done and a grouping issue that didn't allow you to join groups because the game thought you were already in one. Those bugs lasted months and because they held off on smaller patches trying to make pull together a lot of new features and bugs, they lost almost their entire player base from launch. I don't know the numbers, but it was incredible how fast the logins declined. The more negative views about a game (bugs / basic features missing) and how long they persist, eventually cause people to resent the game.

So there is a lesson to be learned about how much people are willing to wait for content, features, and bug fixes. The constant release of small patches keeps people at ease that the game is continually at work, and that their voices are being heard. I am a programmer, but for the Development Cycle, I can't speak to whether or not it's easier/better for HexEnt to adjust to a more satisfying schedule. They should be considering what might happen if they take too little action though. (Which I think they realize since they gave the extra 6 months draft to some backers, not that that helps everyone)


You could also look at a company that does this pretty well, Blizzard. Granted, they have an insanely large development staff, that they can split up into teams, but they make larger content patches that come out every 3-4 months (Like Sets) and then features and major bug fixes come out on the week that they are tested and ready. They don't hold back the Quality of Life changes WHICH is really the parts that keep people playing.

IE: Right now, I think it's way too troublesome to sell extra cards especially when I have a lot of one card.
Adding Batch listings, or the ability to list up to 4 together would be really useful and I might spend more time enjoying posting things on the auction house. Which then lends me to think much more positively about the game and that my time in it isn't being wasted, which might get me to farm more cards playing even just the Arena when right now it's like beating my head against a wall. As much as I love to play Hex, Arena has just gotten stale from running through it 100s of times.


And as far as Cory hoping things to be done in a certain time. Trying to figure out when a feature is going to be finished, even in games that aren't trying to do something new, like shooters, it is known in the professional world as one of the hardest things to do. There are people specifically hired to do this job and a lot of times they are wrong by a 1.5 margin. So if something should 'hopefully' take 1 week to get done, a lot of times it may take 1 and a half weeks, and so on. There is a reason that every major company that makes a game has at some point pushed back a release date.

ossuary
05-06-2015, 04:13 PM
Blizzard also has tens of millions of dollars to throw around on their budgets, and a staff roughly 10x larger than CZE's. In addition, they don't release their products into what they call "beta" until they're essentially done bar polish and balancing. Hex was released to the public a good 2 years earlier than a Blizzard product ever would have been (estimate, as a staff Blizzard's size likely could have programmed the same game in less time if they were so inclined). On the whole, it's not really a valid comparison.

Blare731
05-06-2015, 04:43 PM
Blizzard also has tens of millions of dollars to throw around on their budgets, and a staff roughly 10x larger than CZE's. In addition, they don't release their products into what they call "beta" until they're essentially done bar polish and balancing. Hex was released to the public a good 2 years earlier than a Blizzard product ever would have been (estimate, as a staff Blizzard's size likely could have programmed the same game in less time if they were so inclined). On the whole, it's not really a valid comparison.

Didn't I say that?


Granted, they have an insanely large development staff...

Yes, I know HexEnt is no where near the size of Blizzard and I said that. I think it's pretty odd that you picked out that part, because it was obvious and I had already stated it trying to make sure I was being clear. Then you chose to disregard the fact that it still has meaning. You just argued something I agreed with, and then at the end called the point invalid. When you MISSED the point of why I was talking about it.


You could also look at a company that does this pretty well, Blizzard.

The point wasn't to compare HexEnt development team size to Blizzard, the point was to say that there are companies who do release smaller patches well, and it benefits those games. I don't think anyone can really sit here and tell me that people don't enjoy playing Blizzard games. And I'm not saying it's all due to constant patches but I would suspect a healthy amount is. Blizzard was just the first game that I thought of as well.



Sorry for singling you out and being a bit passive aggressive, but it peeves me that you chose to disregard the entire argument in the process because you only found a complaint with that part. It also stems from people who will find a spelling mistake or grammatical error and then focus on that as well.

I have to say, usually I side with a lot of things you say on these forums Oss, but I think it was a bit naive or a bit of stubbornness to not consider the rest of my post, even if it was a poor example.

Stok3d
05-06-2015, 04:59 PM
Blizzard also has tens of millions of dollars to throw around on their budgets, and a staff roughly 10x larger than CZE's.

Blizzard has Billions and likely a couple hundred times the amount of employees to make your point even more valid :)

Axle
05-06-2015, 05:17 PM
To be fair, Hearthstone had a very small team of 15 developers. Less than HEX. A lot of the budget for the game around the first year was put into marketing I bet.

http://hydra-media.cursecdn.com/hearthstone.gamepedia.com/f/f2/Meet_Team_5.jpg

Zophie
05-06-2015, 05:22 PM
If anyone is following the current Shadowrun Chronicles post-launch debacle (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1964352341/shadowrun-online/posts/1221806) you'll see what happens when devs push out lots of small bug fixes in a short period of time with rushed QA testing. They're trying very hard but they've made some very clear mistakes with their approach that they are currently regretting and trying to make up for. Their team is probably around the same size as Hex's, and I'm glad that the Hex devs have avoided this pitfall and are taking a much better approach to testing and bug fixes.

Edit: To clarify, I know this is kind of an apples/oranges comparison, but I just wanted to add this as an example to provide some perspective of potential problems that can come up with smaller patches and the rushed QA testing that is required due to the increased frequency of said patches.

Lefto
05-06-2015, 05:26 PM
On the whole, it's not really a valid comparison.

The main competitor of HEX is HS, which is a Blizzard game. Thus the comparison is valid by default. It may not be fair but it certainly is valid. Or maybe you are under the impression that the average gamer gives a dime about a company's size/budget? They don't! All they care about is the state of the games they play. HEXent really need to step up their game ASAP if they want HEX to be as big as we all want it to be.

Blare731
05-06-2015, 05:39 PM
If anyone is following the current Shadowrun Chronicles post-launch debacle (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1964352341/shadowrun-online/posts/1221806) you'll see what happens when devs push out lots of small bug fixes in a short period of time with rushed QA testing. They're trying very hard but they've made some very clear mistakes with their approach that they are currently regretting and trying to make up for. Their team is probably around the same size as Hex's, and I'm glad that the Hex devs have avoided this pitfall and are taking a much better approach to testing and bug fixes.


Hmm, although I see your point. When I say frequent patches that have small content, I don't mean untested. I mean test the same amount as if it were going to be in one large patch, and then release it when it's ready. Not before, but as it is ready. Will new features have bugs? Of course they will! Those same bugs would be present in the larger patches as well. Honestly, tell someone to code a feature and it will more than likely have bugs. Tell that same person to code three, four, five features at the same time to have them ready on a particular patch day. You are just increasing the odds of making a mistake.


Now, like Ossuary said previously, an approach like this would likely increase development times as a whole. Because you are adding the testing and iteration step multiple times for each feature instead of all at once. BUT individually, and as a community, we will see features more frequently. Which is key to making sure the player base as a whole stays interested and happy. =]

Gwaer
05-06-2015, 05:59 PM
There are several different methodologies when developing software, they all have pros and cons. But one thing is universally true, switching between them mid project is a nightmare. This is how they're developing the game, and it is how they should continue developing the game until a major milestone is reached. There are way too many moving parts at this moment to change gears.

plaguedealer
05-06-2015, 06:27 PM
My two cents about some of the recent discussion is chests are immensely important to the game. They will help give gold a certain value and will have interesting things inside.

Bugs from chest opening could create fundamental problems with the game. Chests are almost as important as the ah and it needs to be about perfectly bug free when released.

The contents inside also are extremely important to how this economy will work in the future.

Thrawn
05-06-2015, 07:10 PM
My two cents about some of the recent discussion is chests are immensely important to the game. They will help give gold a certain value and will have interesting things inside.

Bugs from chest opening could create fundamental problems with the game. Chests are almost as important as the ah and it needs to be about perfectly bug free when released.

The contents inside also are extremely important to how this economy will work in the future.

I don't think chests will be that important at all in the short term. The sheer number of chests people are sitting on is going to crash the value of anything in them from the first two sets.

plaguedealer
05-06-2015, 07:15 PM
If legendary and primal chests contain little or nothing of value it will hurt the gold value greatly. There are very few people that have hundreds of legendary and primal chests. Those two kinds of chests are extremely important for the economy.

Zophie
05-06-2015, 07:37 PM
I don't think chests will be that important at all in the short term. The sheer number of chests people are sitting on is going to crash the value of anything in them from the first two sets.

Just imagine what a nightmare it would have been for the devs if the first day all the kickstarters opened their thousands of packs of cards if there was some kind of bug that prevented certain cards from generating or all legendaries came out of them or maybe only 10 cards per pack or something like that. Now imagine that many chests opening plus however many thousands (or millions?) of chests from packs opened since then, all being opened in about the same amount of time. Sure, they'll have an effect on the economy when they are eventually opened, but a million other worse things could happen if they aren't done right. The devs are going to be damned sure they get it right the first time, and there is no way in hell they are going to rush them out without testing everything like crazy and making sure the phat loots inside are absolutely perfect.

Axle
05-06-2015, 07:56 PM
Nothing more active test server use wouldn't help immensely with. None of the risk with a fake economy, and the money spent having the smaller servers up wouldn't be more than the money spent having employees spend their day bug checking.

plaguedealer
05-06-2015, 07:59 PM
Test servers can help with bugs, but wouldn't help too much with what is in legendary and primal chests that make people want to roll high end chests.

vickrpg
05-07-2015, 10:39 AM
The main competitor of HEX is HS
I definitely don't agree with this point. Anyone who knows both games knows how different they are, and they really target different audiences. in the strictest sense they aren't even the same genre. TCG vs CCG. I'd say the main competitor of Hex is MTGO.

People who play HS and think it's awesome will not like hex. They will be confused by its complexity and complain about its price points. the words pay 2 win may be thrown around.

People who play Hex and think it's awesome think HS is "cute" but not serious. They will be annoyed by its simplicity and limitations (class based decks? No playing during opponent's turns? can't trade for cards? ugh) The words "not a real game" may be thrown around.

Warrender
05-07-2015, 10:47 AM
I definitely don't agree with this point. Anyone who knows both games knows how different they are, and they really target different audiences. in the strictest sense they aren't even the same genre. TCG vs CCG. I'd say the main competitor of Hex is MTGO.

People who play HS and think it's awesome will not like hex. They will be confused by its complexity and complain about its price points. the words pay 2 win may be thrown around.

People who play Hex and think it's awesome think HS is "cute" but not serious. They will be annoyed by its simplicity and limitations (class based decks? No playing during opponent's turns? can't trade for cards? ugh) The words "not a real game" may be thrown around.

Absolutely spot on analysis and I couldn't agree more.

Thrawn
05-07-2015, 10:53 AM
Plenty of people play both HS and MTGO and I'd be willing to be a fair bit of people, probably even here, play Hex and HS.

It doesn't matter if they are a perfect 1 to 1 comparison or not, people will be comparing the two games.

strylght
05-07-2015, 11:03 AM
While I agree that MTGO is the FAR better comparison for Hex, there is no reason to presume that people can't enjoy Hex and Hearthstone and even think they are both awesome.

Zophie
05-07-2015, 11:15 AM
While I agree that MTGO is the FAR better comparison for Hex, there is no reason to presume that people can't enjoy Hex and Hearthstone and even think they are both awesome.

I thought Hearthstone was pretty neat for what it was. I had some fun with it for a little bit, but it was eclipsed so completely by Hex that I really haven't had the urge to go back to it at all since it started. It's not that I don't like it, it's that I love Hex a lot more and get so much more out of it than I do from Hearthstone.

On that note, any time I notice people on my b.net friends list playing Hearthstone a lot I have a habit of letting them know about Hex - If anything I think Hearthstone is a good introduction to the genre for a lot of people and when they're ready to graduate to something more challenging Hex is there waiting with open arms :)

strylght
05-07-2015, 11:20 AM
I thought Hearthstone was pretty neat for what it was. I had some fun with it for a little bit, but it was eclipsed so completely by Hex that I really haven't had the urge to go back to it at all since it started. It's not that I don't like it, it's that I love Hex a lot more and get so much more out of it than I do from Hearthstone.

This matches my feelings almost exactly. In fact, I think I've even admitted on these fora somewhere that I find a "pleasing coherence in Hearthstone's simplicity" or something like that. :)
But ultimately yeah, for me, Hex reduces it to a novelty to play on my tablet while cooking. Although, I prefer Star Realms for that purpose anyway.

vickrpg
05-08-2015, 06:32 AM
While I agree that MTGO is the FAR better comparison for Hex, there is no reason to presume that people can't enjoy Hex and Hearthstone and even think they are both awesome.

And I didn't say there was such a reason. I just didn't list every type of person in existence, just 2 types. There's also people who will feel indiferent to both, Hate both, love both, kind of dabble in both(or either) etc...

I personally like hearthstone, but I feel absolutely no need to give them any money. It's a nice distraction, and I often play it while waiting for hex drafts, and instantly forfeit if my draft starts.

Hex on the other hand, I backed, and am trying(and failing) very hard not to spend any more money, but it is getting hard with all the new things coming out soon.


But I still think saying "Main competition" is incorrect. They are clearly not in competition for the same type of audience, is my point.

strylght
05-08-2015, 07:48 AM
And I didn't say there was such a reason. I just didn't list every type of person in existence, just 2 types.

Apologies, your sentences seemed to me to be constructed to be definitive (people who think x about a will think y about b) but I'm willing to accept your intentions were true. :)



But I still think saying "Main competition" is incorrect. They are clearly not in competition for the same type of audience, is my point.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Briala
05-08-2015, 08:01 PM
Meh. Not a fan of their strategy of releasing everything at once. The wait till set 3 will be long. This game can't really afford to have such a long content drought. Hopefully everything goes smoothly for the set 3 release.
Content drought? If we are imagining a future where Hex is a commercial success, I'd argue the vast majority of its future players haven't even heard of the game yet it, let alone run out of content on it. I worry that CZ may be over-emphasizing pleasing its early backers, at the expense of being able to attract and retain an ongoing commercial scale audience.

Let's imagine that at some point in the next year, Hex is ready to launch and use whatever marketing funds it has to sign up players. As those new prospects come to the game for the first time, having +50% more cards will mean next to nothing to them, and it may even be a negative if it slows the card manager down, makes the games feel less accessible or more initially expensive, etc.

Meanwhile what it really needs is an overall UI and experience that is fun in and of itself (not to mention even lower hanging fruit like being self explanatory and bug free), and not settle for being a tool that is merely adequate to allow a player who is already super motivated to play this sort of game to get the job done. I think it is dangerous for CZ that their audience to date is too-motivated, too-knowledgeable, and already far too experienced at working with the current UI for them to have a healthy perspective on what their priorities really need to be.

The veterans here probably don't even see it anymore, but as a recent new player I can tell you the UI is riddled with places where basic questions are unanswered and the player is left with frustration or doubt.* The most motivated of players will figure it out or look it up on the forums. The other 90% will play another game and not come back.

Some of you may be thinking, "that's great -- let that mass audience play Hearthstone instead -- I don't want to play a game that's dumbed down for them anyway." That thinking misses on two counts. First, you need a critical mass of customers not just to keep CZ in business and with a sufficient staff to well execute on its ambitious vision, but even for direct game experience such as frequency and variety of tournaments, liquidity of the trading market, etc. Second, I attribute HS's rapid success less to its game simplification and more to its quality, polish and marketing: being on platforms where players are, making sure new players have a very solid initial experience, not requiring much (or any) previous experience (which is not the same as not eventually revealing depth), and being polished until its gleaming. Many of these things don't even cost that much but make a huge difference in how many players you can expect to recruit into your community.

My personal agenda in this is that I want Hex to succeed, and I do not want the "lesson learned" two years from now in every business discussion within the industry to be that the Hex vs HS face off proved that "players want simpler." I believe that there is a very significant market that wants the depth Hex is aiming at, but that many of those players also need the quality and polish aspects of a significant game release. I really hope CZ doesn't blow it on this, not only for themselves but also for all the other potential games that may get foreclosed on before they even get started.

* sampler pack
what packs are being drafted in this tournament?
Does my draft deck have to obey the same rules as my arena deck does?
If I bid at the AH, am I raising to that price immediately or authorizing the computer to auto-bid up to it?
Do I have to manually "collect" refunds from every outbid notification email?
what are these chest things and what does spinning them?
etc etc

Axle
05-08-2015, 09:30 PM
Okay? UI changes is content. New player experience is content. Events are content. Arena updates are content. Everything you're talking about is content. Looks like we're on the same page here! We haven't had any of the sort in awhile, and at my post we had no plans of anything more mentioned. Now we have news of a new AA card rotation at least, which will help, but not every player wants to play arena to get those.

I never complained about lack of cards. I mentioned set 3 release because it was the most recent content that we have any date or news about. HEX is a business, and it needs money to stay afloat. It's current players do matter when a lot of them aren't being as active on the game because there's nothing new to do. Having a better new player experience would also be sufficient.

We know there is a problem with the new player experience. We've had entire threads on it. I have routinely talked about it. Your wall of text is a bit dramatic for a non problem with veteran player opinion of the early game for someone new. It's nothing we can change, we've already said that the starter decks are awfully priced and are a pitfall basically, the AH is entirely unexplained, giving "trial" periods for starter decks would be nice. We already know the marketing is a bit weak right now, but I'm sure they would do more if they could, and I think they still do want to wait more for dungeons to go heavier into marketing.

Briala
05-08-2015, 10:40 PM
OK Axle - sorry for misquoting / misinterpreting what you meant by content! Going by your inclusive definition above, I certainly agree more content is needed. In any event by choosing that quote snippet to start from I didn't mean to direct any or all that followed at you personally.

I remain puzzled and surprised CZ would have chosen to prioritize set 3 while leaving so many more fundamental details unattended, leading to my concern that they think those areas are "OK" as is (as do at least some forum posters here), further leading to my concern that they therefore won't be long for the market. The degree to which this is an overly dramatic interpretation remains to be seen, but l'm sure hoping you're right.

Gwaer
05-08-2015, 11:09 PM
The way I see it is this. They're a physical game company, they make card games, all manor of them. Their business is geared to card design. They've got incredibly talented people working on these sets physically first, designing without programming. It's basically what they're geared to do. The design of sets takes the least effort in the grand scheme of their business.

Continuing their set design and implementation doesn't slow anything down. The people working on it can't do any of the other stuff. That's not to say that the company isn't working on the other stuff. I'm sure they have people on it, but those are new people that they are hiring specifically for it, while the card design people have been there working since the beginning, so there are more of them, and they're already in a groove.

I'm sure that a lot of these things we all want, better onboarding, clearer UI, etc are the highest priority. It's an infrastructure problem. At least that's what it seems like to me.

ossuary
05-09-2015, 08:16 AM
That's the impression I've gotten as well. Card design is old hat to them, but video game design (and all the pitfalls therein) is very much a new thing to them. They have a solid team that is growing and getting better all the time, but it still takes a lot of time and energy to take a group of even very good, very experienced programmers and get them to coalesce into an actual team that works well together. The pieces of this machine are still moving slightly out of sync with each other, or are more like individual little units instead of a real army. They are coming together, and they are improving how they work, but the pieces that depend mostly or solely on them are still behind where the core company is at. We're getting there, but it takes time, and all of these things will get done eventually, we just need to give them some patience and some leeway until we reach that point. When we get to that destination, it will be worth all the waiting and the headaches along the way.

Thrawn
05-09-2015, 09:49 AM
Can only explain so many times that if they quit releasing content they will lose the current players and the game dies before it ever even gets to a point of full release.

Personally I don't know if I can think of anything I would rather see released right now over Set 3, but I thought this was a thread about chests?

ossuary
05-09-2015, 10:31 AM
Arena isn't even 2 months old. Can only explain so many times that no content and content not quite fast enough for your preference are not even close to the same thing. :p

Thrawn
05-09-2015, 10:39 AM
Arena isn't even 2 months old. Can only explain so many times that no content and content not quite fast enough for your preference are not even close to the same thing. :p

Unfortunately as good as Arena is it certainly doesn't contain 2 months worth of replayable content.

That wasn't at all the discussion I was trying to have though, I was just referring to people who seem to want Hex to quit working on new sets and put all focus on other things.

ossuary
05-09-2015, 12:06 PM
I was just referring to people who seem to want Hex to quit working on new sets and put all focus on other things.

That, at least, we can agree on then. The idea of abandoning one side of the game entirely to push out other things is ridiculous. Work is continuing on both the PVP and PVE side, as well as ongoing work on the interface as a whole. They are not, nor should they be, exclusive.

bootlace
05-09-2015, 12:43 PM
Relating to the topic, I believe chest opening is coming in the next patch. While everyone rightly assumes they're cutting off set 1 common AAs perhaps to replace with new set 2/3 common AAs, I believe it could actually be due to the imminent release of chest opening.

If they have both common AAs and chest opening at the same time, it would send the gold/plat ratio to even crazier levels (making the common AAs too expensive AND making the chest spinning too expensive) - that would be way too powerful of a sink without as good a faucet. Also removing shop AAs removes a variable, and lets them better see chest opening's effectiveness as a gold sink and how it affects the gold/plat ratio in its current implementation.

Total speculation here, I could be totally off.

Blare731
05-09-2015, 01:25 PM
Relating to the topic, I believe chest opening is coming in the next patch. While everyone rightly assumes they're cutting off set 1 common AAs perhaps to replace with new set 2/3 common AAs, I believe it could actually be due to the imminent release of chest opening.

If they have both common AAs and chest opening at the same time, it would send the gold/plat ratio to even crazier levels (making the common AAs too expensive AND making the chest spinning too expensive) - that would be way too powerful of a sink without as good a faucet. Also removing shop AAs removes a variable, and lets them better see chest opening's effectiveness as a gold sink and how it affects the gold/plat ratio in its current implementation.

Total speculation here, I could be totally off.

Your theory is pretty sound, multiple reasons pointing to the release of chests with the cutoff of gold AAs. Though, that doesn't necessarily mean next patch, or set 3, though I hope so as well. But definitely makes sense to cut off AAs to test exactly how good a gold sink chests are. Though, I think it will be pretty skewed since we haven't seen enough PvE content to know how much you will earn through a story mode.

Though they might balance the story mode gold outputs based on the average gold income from Arena as well. Making the test to see if chests is a good gold sink relevant. I just hope that in the story PvE part, we see much more gold per hour. Because as someone has said before "I feel like a Chinese gold farmer" playing arena for gold. It's pitiful how much gold per hour you actually get even with a fast winning deck.

Yewstance
05-09-2015, 01:49 PM
Preface 1: I am a Computer Science student, not an industry professional. I admit to ignorance in the development field and methodologies.

Preface 2: The major concern I have that I will elaborate on primarily works on the assumption (that seems most likely to me at this point in time) that set 3 will be released with PvP card bugs (excepting those from extreme corner cases that are formed from specific interactions between unlikely sequences of effects or cards, such as multiple transformations between card types and card text changes) from set 1 and 2 still present. If the set 3 patch comes with a list of DOZENS of card fixes as a vast spring cleaning of card interaction issues, then I feel my concerns are less significant - though not eliminated.

I do personally feel that a lot of the developer work and growing hype (spoilers, etc) for set 3 could be better directed at bugfixing, particularly in regards to card bugs (PvE 'randomly made' cards in PvP, incorrect threshold Battle Hoppers, corner cases where buffs fail to effect certain creatures, Tectonic Break's continued issues, among others) and card linking issues.

Arena/PvE related issues (aside from AI) are more numerous, albeit arguably less important, such as incorrect functionality of certain champion passives (such as Hex Geode triggering Nelebrin Scout's passive) or multiple equipment (such as the Shatter Shield equipment ignoring the term 'other' used in its text).

I recognize that the priority in terms of card interaction fixes tend to come quickly to cards that make a large splash in constructed - the Reese fix and AA CMK fix come to mind as recent examples - but I am concerned that outside of that scope, we won't see the card bug backlog be even close to clean by the time we add in dozens of new issues with the release of either chests or the next set, or both. Set 2 may well rotate out of drafting with certain elements having never been fixed.

If a lifespan of a set isn't enough to end up with one with its cards working as intended, it's a worrying standard to set for a digital CCG, I feel. Since, eventually, set 3 card bugs will take higher priority than set 1/2 bugs (due to the draft environment shift), will we see Wretched Wrangler, or other similar card issues, *ever* fixed, or will they dwell on the backlog for another 6 months, and another again come set 4? If sets do indeed start coming thick and faster than before, as seemed to be the original intent relative to what we've been getting, will these issues just compound?

As I passed on in my second preface - if these bugs are fixed upon set 3's release, there's a kind of sadness in that too. I'll probably never get the chance to make a set 2 draft in Hex again with a fully 'working' set 2. Never be able to really utilize Wretched Wrangler in a Blood/X deck that doesn't have wild, like was intended, as an example off the top of my head. Minor card bugs, of course, but still something that effects the current experience.

I'm curious what ossuary thinks of my concerns, as someone in a vastly more appropriate position to comment.

Thrawn
05-09-2015, 02:12 PM
It's just something they need to figure out. If they aren't eventually capable of releasing sets at a regular time interval without constant game breaking bugs, or aren't able to fix bugs in a timely manner the game will just start to fail after the backlog piles up enough that players aren't willing to put up with it or get bored with too long of a gap between new content. We just need to have faith they can get it rolling smoothly going forward.

ossuary
05-10-2015, 07:10 AM
I'm curious what ossuary thinks of my concerns, as someone in a vastly more appropriate position to comment.

It's off-topic, but it's also a valid concern, so I'm happy to comment.

From my experience, a subset of the devs is always working on fixing existing content. Even during the period of time we all had access to the public test server before Arena was released, there were several minor bugs fixed from day to day. They have internal tools for tracking bugs and version control and whatnot as well, so they are on top of it even if fixes haven't been pushed to the live client yet.

I can assure you that it is not CZE's intention to leave known bugs in the system indefinitely. Their goal is a 100% match from card text to card function. It will probably take more time to reach that point, but I think it's safe to assume we will see another round of fixes to existing cards / AI behavior either prior to or with the release of Set 3. While I personally (as both a customer and a software developer myself) would like to see bug fixes happen more quickly and more often, having had the good fortune (or perhaps misfortune, given the amount of hours it's cost me!) to see behind the curtain a little bit, I can definitely understand why they are operating things this way right now.

As I've said many times in this thread and others, for the size of team they have and the budget they have to work with and the amount of content they need to produce, releasing as many things as possible at once makes the most sense, even if it's less than ideal from a customer patience standpoint. There are a LOT of moving pieces that all have to sing harmoniously together for this beautiful catastrophe to keep playing, and trying to push out constant patches every 1-2 weeks on top of all the prep work and redesigning / iterating of future features would just be too much to handle. If they try to reach too far or push for too much, the whole thing comes crashing down, and nobody wants that. :)

Yewstance
05-15-2015, 12:21 PM
It's off-topic, but it's also a valid concern, so I'm happy to comment.

Late reply from me, but I just wanted to say thank you for sharing your insight, it's given me a certain degree more optimism.

israel.kendall
05-15-2015, 12:57 PM
I understand why they wait to put in a bunch of bug fixes at once, but I hope the future goal is to fix bugs as quickly as possible with small and frequent updates. I don't enjoy spending months building around bugs in draft and for tourneys.