PDA

View Full Version : Refactor "Shard of _" Resources / Change opening hand draw



Zulwar
08-09-2015, 10:31 PM
First, I distinguish between cards as Standard Resources (no card limit) and Special (4 card limit).
Second, I will draw your attention to the HEX website which describes playing Resources as the following:
http://i.imgur.com/kqdqRPW.jpg

Text version:
You can play one resource card a turn. When you play a resource card, three things happen:


You charge your champion. You'll expend these charges to trigger your champion's charge power throughout the game.
You gain one of five different thresholds: Wild, Blood, Ruby, Diamond, or Sapphire.
You gain a resource point.


Then, your resource card disappears. So what do Thresholds and and Resource Points do for you? They let you play all your other cards.

Why is this important? Let's look into some math for a Standard Constructed Deck of 60 cards.
On average, we'll assume it has 25 standard resource cards and 35 non-resource cards.

To keep it mathematically light, it is easy to just say that there are more non-resource than resource cards.
So, the chance to draw a non-resource card is higher.

Averages:
You have a 10.51% chance of having 0 or 1 Resource cards in your opening hand.
You have a 79.43% chance of having 2 to 4 Resource cards in your opening hand.
You have a 10.01% chance of having 5 to 7 Resources cards in your opening hand.

Where's the other .05%? Room for error.

So, what does this mean?
8 out of 10 opening hands with have 2 to 4 Resources.
In those games, you can be expected to play a < 1 / 1 > Resource every turn for 2 - 4 turns.

And now to why "Shard of _" special resources break this resource flow:

"Shard of _" cards give < 0 / 1 >, along with their normal bonuses.

Crackling Vortex is a powerful card and many decks include it, so let's change our theoretical deck to accommodate:
60 cards, 25 resource (21 standard, 4 special).
Also, let's assume a dual-threshold deck, so 4 "Shard of _" cards:
60 cards, 25 resource (17 standard, 8 special).

"But Crackling Vortex gives < 1 / 1>" I hear you say.
Yes, it does, but it also gives no threshold.


Why is this important?
Delayed early game resources.

Okay, we have our 60-card deck, our special resources and we're ready to go.

Turn 1:
But wait, you say your three opening resources were Crackling Vortex, Shard of ___, and a standard resource?
You play your Standard Resource so you can play a 1 mana cost troop.
Too bad, it looks like you have to choose whether you want threshold or usable mana for turn 2.

Turn 2:
Okay, all is not lost, except your first draw has a 58.5% chance to be a non-resource, and it is.
Turn 2, you play your Shard of __ card and hope to play Crackling Vortex for turn 3 < 3 / 3 > mana.
Your oppponent; however, plays gets his 2 mana troop on the board.

Turn 3:
You draw another non-resource card because there is still a 58% chance of drawing non-resource cards.
You play Crackling Vortex and now you can use 3 mana, except you are now relying on top-decking a resource
next turn with a 57% chance of drawing any non-resource.

You cry, "But wait, that's just an example of a bad draw for only 1 game".

Theoretically, you should only have a 13.33% chance of drawing your less-than-optimal special resource cards in your opening hand; however, after averaging many test draws, it appears not to be the case.

Although I will not claim to know the scripting logic of the game, I propose the following:
Opening hands "try" (loosely being the keyword) to generate at least one Resource.
The resource it chooses does not differentiate between Standard or Special.

Here is the radical idea:
Let's assume it tries to generate -two- resources, but it doesn't care what they are. What happens?
25 Resources, 8 of which are special.

You now have a 32% chance to pull your special Resource into your opening hand on your first draw.
Assuming you pull one special resource, you still have a 29.16% chance to pull ANOTHER special Resource.

Of that ~30% chance, you have a 50% chance (4x Shard of ___, 4x Crackling Vortex) to draw a DELAYED mana Resource (Shard of ____ < 0 / 1 >).
You have the potential to have delayed mana until Turn 3.

My only proposal is thus:
Change "Shard of ___" cards to give < 1 / 1 > instead of < 0 / 1 > and to prevent abuse, change the opening hand draw script to treat Special Resources as regular cards so they aren't abused in opening hands.


If I have made a data mistake, I will admit it. Please point it out, thanks.
Thank you for your time,
Zulwar

Xexist
08-09-2015, 10:39 PM
Why didn't you play your shard of- card on turn 1?

Zulwar
08-09-2015, 10:41 PM
I apologize; my assumption there was you drawing a playable 1 mana cost troop, but I forgot to add it.
I'll amend that now.

Thanks Xexist.

nicosharp
08-09-2015, 11:27 PM
You do realize the delayed resource was an intended design decision based on the card offering you more diverse threshold options?

In Magic see "Shock Lands". "Tap Lands".

Straight Dual Lands in Magic were considered by many, and most likely these game creators as well, as poorly designed lands because their power level was too high.

You will also see many people touting that the game is already going down a slippery slope by having rare chase resources. I'm sorry, but there is no easy fix to this.

You either play these dual shards and sacrifice your turn tempo, or you don't and risk threshold screw. This type of system has you sacrifice tempo for consistency.

The image you linked just needs one errata - change the name of "Resource" to "Basic Resource". All the resources you are identifying are non-basic resources.

Jeevus
08-10-2015, 01:55 AM
You do realize the delayed resource was an intended design decision based on the card offering you more diverse threshold options?

In Magic see "Shock Lands". "Tap Lands".

First of all, i am not saying that i agree with the OP. I don't. At least not what he is proposing.


Now back to your quote. You can't simply compare Set2 dual resources to shocklands. Because they are not. I can' play them "untapped". Next point is your "taplands". The last real taplands i remember were those from 8th edition. No extras or if-clauses. The new taplands, especially the rares, almost always have a nice condition tied to them, like scry 1, an untapped-if condition or something similar.

Please be sure to make accurate comparisons.


My personal opinion on the new rare lands? It's a step in the right direction and i like them alot. Shock- or dual lands for hex are just way too op (thanks to the threshold system for once), we do need conditional dual shard lands (or other ways to fix thresholds early game) to allow more interaction between shards.

Spiredore
08-10-2015, 02:16 AM
Now back to your quote. You can't simply compare Set2 dual resources to shocklands. Because they are not.

...

Please be sure to make accurate comparisons.


I don't think it was Nico's intention to draw direct parallels to those specific types of land, just to point out that the sacrificing tempo for breadth of options (which is the point he made immediately before) is something that commonly happens in the design of resources, and comparable cards from other games.

nicosharp
08-10-2015, 02:19 AM
I don't think it was Nico's intention to draw direct parallels to those specific types of land, just to point out that the sacrificing tempo for breadth of options (which is the point he made immediately before) is something that commonly happens in the design of resources, and comparable cards from other games.

True. They aren't even remotely the same, but the point is there is a sacrifice being made for the resource to be as strong as it is.

tyra
08-10-2015, 02:51 AM
I would argue that Crackling Vortex has no place in a dual shard deck.
Also, if you play 1 cost troops, you are probably playing a VERY aggressive deck and thus probably want to avoid the dual shards (which is why the most aggressive decks we have seen were all mono colored).
...

also, more importantly:

My only proposal is thus:
Change "Shard of ___" cards to give < 1 / 1 > instead of < 0 / 1 > and to prevent abuse, change the opening hand draw script to treat Special Resources as regular cards so they aren't abused in opening hands.
While I agree that we need better fixing/resources to decrease variance in dual shard decks, I think you have a wrong idea.
There is no opening hand draw script. Means, there is no difference between a normal resource, a special resource and a troop. Only the quantity has influence on the probability of drawing them.

DoctorJoe
08-10-2015, 05:32 AM
I'm a big fan of the uncommon cycle of dual shards. They add interesting choices during deck construction and gameplay. I feel like the allegiance shards are also well balanced, but I'm not a huge fan of them being "printed" at rare.

Vorpal
08-10-2015, 10:29 AM
If you are playing a dual shard deck and include resources that give you no thresholds, you are just asking for trouble.

The tradeoffs between the different resource types are a deliberate design choice.

Yoss
08-10-2015, 10:41 AM
I like the current system. No special shard should ever exist that is strictly better than basic shards. There should always be some draw back.

Vorpal
08-10-2015, 11:35 AM
Yeah. If your deck can't handle delayed mana, do not include delayed mana resources. Don't ask to change the delayed mana resource cards to not be delayed.

You seem to think we need to cram every special resource into every deck, but this is not the case.