PDA

View Full Version : Why there are no downside in using opposite faction cards on your deck?



PCMR-HEX
02-04-2016, 03:13 AM
See title.

I don't know if I'm the only one, but it really bothers me when I see deck lists that use opposite faction cards in them. Like, what would be the motivation for King Gabriel to be helping an Necrotic hero? And also, this kind of interaction sometimes make the encounters really easier and, at least for me, reduce the my affinity with the faction I'm defending.

Of course, I don't do that, I never mix ardent and underworld troops even if that means I'm gimping myself. But I believe we should have some sort of restriction on deck building or at least a bane, like when they announced that Vennen(?) troops in Orc decks would cost more.

ShloobeR
02-04-2016, 03:32 AM
Yeh this has kind of always bugged me in PvE but I don't know if it's worth the effort to actually do something about.

I suppose there could just be achievement incentive of using ardent/underworld only decks

Eierdotter
02-04-2016, 03:56 AM
i was tinkering with my deck after struggling with the Wormoid Queen for hours when i noticed i can also use other races then necrotic^^.

feels very strange to use a righteous paladin as a necrotic cleric...

maybe we will see strong buffs for building decks with themed factions or even race for certain dungeons.
Like "Strong unity amongst the troops enhances theyr moral"
all troops match the faction of the champion - "Troops you control get +2/+2"
all troops match the race of the champion - "Troops you control get a racebased keyword*"
*for example, humans get steadfast, necrotic get lifedrain, orcs get rage1, ...

Lafoote
02-04-2016, 04:14 AM
Deck building choices are already restricted enough. You can play what you like. I chose to play all ardent/neutral in my Coyotle deck, but I appreciate that it's not forced on me. The recruiters are out there. They reward you for including cards of a faction. In all likelihood we will see additions to that theme sooner or later.

wolzarg
02-04-2016, 04:21 AM
It takes a lot of extra time to design different drawbacks if you just wanted cost+1 across the board you can play as if they have that if you want. There is really no need to limit the rest of the player base because of it.

I'm not saying it wouldn't have been interesting to putt very harsh limits on race class faction based on your hero but it would also easily make some races superior to other based on the cardpool.

PCMR-HEX
02-04-2016, 04:24 AM
Deck building choices are already restricted enough. You can play what you like. I chose to play all ardent/neutral in my Coyotle deck, but I appreciate that it's not forced on me. The recruiters are out there. They reward you for including cards of a faction. In all likelihood we will see additions to that theme sooner or later.

I don't find it restricting, sure the shards limits and number of cards are restricting, but we are talking about the first 9 of 30 levels. At some point we will have no restriction (shards or quantity).
When they announced the warrior talent tree, and then using the orc warrior as an example, it had a bane on the Vennen, which to me makes much sense. I haven't played orc's yet, but the races I have played, you can have any mix of ardent and underworld.

And off course I can play whatever I like, and I choose to not mix the two factions, but with very hard encounters we have now and hoping for even harder content, in the end the only solution may rest on using other faction troops. This is called opinion, which both of us are entitled to our own :)

Xenith
02-04-2016, 04:53 AM
It's because its hard to design encounters when each side lacks several staple effects. For example an Underworld player has trouble ramping because they can't use Howling Brave, Lithe Lyricist, Puck, etc. An Ardent player is denied a bunch of removal Underworld has.

loopholist3
02-04-2016, 07:29 AM
The fact that it was announced with the orc warrior, but then removed it tells me that they really liked the flavor implications of doing it, but after play testing it, they determined it was unfun.

Stuie
02-04-2016, 08:01 AM
Rather than further restrictions, I would propose that they reward players who "role play" within additional constraints such as no use of non-faction troops. I adhere to faction-only for my gameplay regardless, but it would be cool if the game recognized it in some way if you choose to do so.

Xenavire
02-04-2016, 08:14 AM
This might be neat if they ever give us 'hardcore' characters. Faction lock, race lock, class lock, racial colour lock, and probably others, would be neat restrictions you could choose at character creation. If anyone here has played Pillars of Eternity, certain toggles at character creation similar to those in Pillars would be a lot of fun (although permadeath should probably be another separate mode.)

LNQ
02-04-2016, 08:19 AM
I am pretty confident that deckbuilding restrictions in PvE will be adjusted over time as the devs have time to iterate on different designs. No one can make the perfect system on the first try, and even though Hex tried a ton of systems behind the scenes before releasing campaign, I sure hope they are open to adjusting if it seems like there would be more fun to had with different systems. PvE is subject to change as they say. I don't think this includes only PvE cards and equipment.

For the first go I'm satisfied with the current setup, but I kind of agree it would be interesting if there was more incentive to stick to a theme. No doubt it's difficult to do that in a fun way though. It does feel funny that I am able to play the same mono blood deck with both an orc and a shin'hare.

Hrinkell
02-04-2016, 08:27 AM
As said above, you can guys take role playing as far as you want... no need to constraint everybody

On the other hand, additional/special rewards for completing dungeons/quests under specific deckbuilding rules/nerfs would be quite interesting and would add some more flavour, I agree.

Another possibility would be different game modes:
- Basic = free access to any card
- Advanced = only faction cards allowed

Quantius
02-04-2016, 08:51 AM
If people want to play tribal, then you play tribal, leave me out of it.

plaguedealer
02-04-2016, 08:58 AM
I wouldnt be surprised if we see race or faction restrictions later on in higher levels. Echoing someone else, I dont think we have enough cards yet for that type of restriction.

Vorpal
02-04-2016, 08:58 AM
I don't want to see penalties for non tribal. I want to see benefits for tribal.

There are some strong synergies for playing cards that match your class.

There don't seem to be any for playing cards that match your race or your faction.

I'm aware of the recruiters and wish we could see more of that.

Gryffe
02-04-2016, 09:12 AM
As for myself, I can't see me not inclunding mostly Shin'Hare troops in the deck of my Shin'Hare warrior. However, let's think a little as a game designer here. It's not fun to be denied options solely based on the choices you made at the creation of the character, and people shouldn't be pidgeonholed into specific deck theme because of something they decided hundred of hours ago. Sure, we currently experience the grid limit, but it's there to give a sense of progression, of gaining power through leveling with enlarged options.

So what we're most likely to see is "positive management". Instead of penalizing people who doesn't fit the theme, they'll probably try to reward the people who build around it. Think "Ardent / Underworld allegiance". Right now, we don't have much choice in the number of cards with these effects, but as PvE will grow, you can bet that the devs will make sure that constructing your deck around roleplay will be rewarded more than simply going with what work (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RagtagBunchOfMisfits).

It clearly make sense in their overall policy, like how we'll be able to build whatever we want at level 30 or how the racial-class trait give you benefits for working around them without hindering you if you choose not too.

Xavon
02-04-2016, 09:19 AM
There are other cards that are Ardent or Underworld keyed.

I also agree there should be benefits, not penalties.

Playing tribal will hopefully be easier as more sets are released. Wild and its staples where mentioned, it would be nice to have similar (but not copied) cards for the other side. Like instead of Puck, we could have a Shin'Hare Mage that lets you exhaust any number of other Shin'hare for one temp resource each.

Aradon
02-04-2016, 09:45 AM
It'd be interesting to see some unique dialogue options as a result of having an aligned deck, so there were roleplaying benefits. I'd even be fine with some minor bonuses similar to the ones you get in the Rose Thorn dungeon, since you're constricting the deck construction. But they ought to be rather minor, and unlocked via the dialogue options.

malloc31
02-04-2016, 10:03 AM
just wondering has any one tried beating the campaign using a single faction deck? It would almost make sense if Fort Romar had added rewards for beating it without using the opposing factions cards.

wolzarg
02-04-2016, 10:17 AM
just wondering has any one tried beating the campaign using a single faction deck? It would almost make sense if Fort Romar had added rewards for beating it without using the opposing factions cards.

My friend did a all shinhare run which to my knowledge had no ardents in it.

PCMR-HEX
02-04-2016, 10:33 AM
just wondering has any one tried beating the campaign using a single faction deck? It would almost make sense if Fort Romar had added rewards for beating it without using the opposing factions cards.

I have done the campaign with an elf cleric in which there was no underworld troops and I'm finishing with a Necrotic warrior using the same rule. It is possible, just a little bit less efficient. And also, I now agree that the title of the post is misleading. Instead of punishing the use of non faction cards, it should be the opposite as many other have pointed, and I agree with that, it even sound better.

I don't think it's possible to run the entire campaign only with the race cards at this point, because there are too few race specific cards that at this moment that you can play (because of shard limits and card quantity), but this would also be really nice.

Jormungandr
02-04-2016, 10:58 AM
I don't think it's possible to run the entire campaign only with the race cards at this point, because there are too few race specific cards that at this moment that you can play (because of shard limits and card quantity), but this would also be really nice.

My Vennen cleric deck has only vennen troops in it, I believe. It might have one or two chaostouched as well, but certainly no ardent. And I'm on the final dungeon of the campaign. (Been playing too many alts to progress terribly quickly)

Turtlewing
02-04-2016, 12:04 PM
Wasn't the war like 200 years ago?

Also as the dialog options include asking what the alliance your race is a part of even is I think it's implied that PvE champions are young and ignorant of the past enough that they may not hold to the expected allegiances on a personal level.

As such you can choose to include only faction matching cards and RP a loyalist, or you can choose to include only cross faction cards and play a traitor, or a mix and play someone scrounging up a band of "scoundrels and misfits" and none of the options are really pushed on you mechanically.

I mean, it's not hugely different from asking why there are Japanese exchange students at an American college after the events of WWII.

Cards that react to the faction of other cards (so like a human troop that has "your deck can't contain any underworld troops") is potentially an interesting design space, but so far not something the devs have really explored. We'll probably see some of them in PvE eventually even if they never make it to PvP sets for gameplay reasons (would probably be inconvenient in limited).

Dinotropia
02-04-2016, 12:45 PM
I would also consider that this may be a spot where Mercs can shine. There have been hints that Mercs will provide some kind of passive bonus for your deck (as well as acting as extra lives / decks for dungeon use). Perhaps there will be some that say: If your deck only includes Ardent troops, X happens.

In fact, we already have the Underworld / Ardent recruiters at the card level. I would be surprised if we don't see more PvE cards printed over time that also have synergies. You may very well get those bonuses as PvE evolves without it having to be a restriction or penalty.

Juneauz
02-04-2016, 12:47 PM
Personally, I would enjoy downsides and limitations regarding the misuse of faction cards. It would increase diversity through each playthrough, enhancing the "rpg" feel and overall replayability.

If you want to be free to play any card in the game, that's what drafts, tournaments and arena are for... Pve should be more about immersion and storytelling, and a penalty/ban system would definitely benefit that.

noragar
02-04-2016, 12:50 PM
just wondering has any one tried beating the campaign using a single faction deck? It would almost make sense if Fort Romar had added rewards for beating it without using the opposing factions cards.

After I got tired of playing the Human Warrior starter deck, I created a deck that had exactly one of every Human Warrior I had a copy of (yes, even that 0/5 Diamond guy) and filled out the rest of the deck with removal spells. That deck did fine all the way up to the Wormoid Queen. Then I dropped Sapphire for some more consistency and swapped in an Angel and Ozawa for a couple of the weaker troops. That deck's still going strong at Level 8, about to go into the last dungeon.

wolzarg
02-04-2016, 01:18 PM
Personally, I would enjoy downsides and limitations regarding the misuse of faction cards. It would increase diversity through each playthrough, enhancing the "rpg" feel and overall replayability.

If you want to be free to play any card in the game, that's what drafts, tournaments and arena are for... Pve should be more about immersion and storytelling, and a penalty/ban system would definitely benefit that.

If you ever play a card that is not in the faction of the race your hero is you have to surrender, there now you have your penalty without ruining my enjoyment of the game.

MaximumSquid
02-04-2016, 01:23 PM
There are already Ardent / Underworld specific combos . . . if you want to use them great, but no reason to force them on players

GenghisMike
02-04-2016, 02:50 PM
I really dislike the idea of restricting players by faction, that would not be fun for me and many others it seems. I like the idea of having different modes or bonuses faction specific decks. That seems like something that could be fun and a good compromise for those that don't want any more restrictions and those that are more hardcore roleplayers.

Yoss
02-04-2016, 02:54 PM
I agree with the OP. It seems weird to not incentivize playing within your faction (plus neutral).

Kamino72
02-04-2016, 03:48 PM
This might be neat if they ever give us 'hardcore' characters. Faction lock, race lock, class lock, racial colour lock, and probably others, would be neat restrictions you could choose at character creation. If anyone here has played Pillars of Eternity, certain toggles at character creation similar to those in Pillars would be a lot of fun (although permadeath should probably be another separate mode.)

This + self loot (maybe need some kind of stores to spend gold on cards) + a scoring system to compete on progression.

I need those modes. Most wanted feature.

K.

kingzzk
02-04-2016, 05:46 PM
There will most likely be a faction warring zone, where faction card restriction is a thing.
I'll say PVE set 3.

Unspecified
02-05-2016, 03:13 AM
Personally I ran through a Vennen using nothing but Vennen and neutral (mostly chaos touched), a dwarf using dwarf/robot, and an elf using nothing but elves.

I chose to use cards that were fitting the race/faction I was playing because I could. The key point is I could.

I strongly suspect from watching a few new players stream that imposing strict restrictions on new players would really hurt the new player experience. A new player trying to play for free would feel far more punished than a player like me that has a playset of all 3 PvP sets. I can imagine as a new player playing a race, say orc, and looking at Fierce Warlord it would be a lot harder to justify buying it off the AH if it wasn't any good if you decided you liked dwarves more. You're still in ruby but suddenly that card you bought (for gold or plat) is not useful to you. It would also mean a lot of rewards feel less rewarding.

Personally I'm happy with it how it is right now. I personally wouldn't care about restrictions because I can play around them easily but new players can't just throw vampire kings into any blood deck they build since they are neutral.

Ogodei
02-05-2016, 05:40 AM
I also believe adding PvE cards (and maybe talents) that give a faction-specific (or maybe race-specific) bonus (or maybe malus) is the way to go. Nice would be also certain encounters or dungeons where race/faction plays a role. Imagine effects that make opposite faction cards cost more or troops switch sides, etc.

PCMR-HEX
02-05-2016, 06:16 AM
After reading all the comments, I believe one solution that would make most of us happy (it's not possible to please everyone) would be:

- AZ1 everything is free to use, no need to limit card allegiance, because the conflict does not play a huge part on this area and also because, as said by Turtlewing, they are still young and doesn't know about the ongoing dispute;

- AZ2 or AZ3 (hopefully both) can have a neutral part, in which the same rules of AZ1 apply, and an area (or more) in which the conflict is happening, and thus, if you venture in you will be defending your faction, meaning you will have to work with your faction strength and weaknesses;

- In the conflict area, even PvP battles could happen (with more focus on fun and less on loot to reduce the advantage of players with lots of cards), using your champion (this would be awesome);

This way, You could progress you character as a purist and evolve on the faction areas, or as a neutral with a mix of both factions and evolve on the neutral areas. From what I have seen so far, we will have enough content to satisfy both group of players.

Rydavim
02-05-2016, 01:03 PM
I would be opposed to adding further restrictions to deck building. The 200 cards upon account creation, and the current PvE cards don't offer a large enough pool for fun deck building if you add even more rules. I think the blow to the new player experience would be significant if the suggested restrictions were imposed universally.

If someone wants to RP, feel free - particularly if you're fortunate enough to have access to the sum of cards you want to use. Others have noted that it looks like they're already adding cards that reward faction-based decks. Let's be content with those options, and see what happens.

sukebe
02-05-2016, 01:31 PM
I would be opposed to adding further restrictions to deck building. The 200 cards upon account creation, and the current PvE cards don't offer a large enough pool for fun deck building if you add even more rules. I think the blow to the new player experience would be significant if the suggested restrictions were imposed universally.

If someone wants to RP, feel free - particularly if you're fortunate enough to have access to the sum of cards you want to use. Others have noted that it looks like they're already adding cards that reward faction-based decks. Let's be content with those options, and see what happens.

The first character I got to level 9 was my necrotic cleric. I completed all the content and made it to level 9 using nothing but the cards we got for free and from campaign rewards (including the gold I earned from campaign being used to buy a few commons and 1 uncommon). I used only underworld cards (almost all necrotic) and neutral cards from this small pool. I did just fine and only needed to repeat a few encounters.

Saying this would be a "significant" blow to new players is definitely an overstatement. it does make things harder but not by a whole lot. Personally I like some of PCMRs ideas (the one where az1 remains neutral and allows all cards and az2+ have areas that require using only cards from your chosen side).

Turtlewing
02-05-2016, 02:49 PM
The first character I got to level 9 was my necrotic cleric. I completed all the content and made it to level 9 using nothing but the cards we got for free and from campaign rewards (including the gold I earned from campaign being used to buy a few commons and 1 uncommon). I used only underworld cards (almost all necrotic) and neutral cards from this small pool. I did just fine and only needed to repeat a few encounters.

Saying this would be a "significant" blow to new players is definitely an overstatement. it does make things harder but not by a whole lot. Personally I like some of PCMRs ideas (the one where az1 remains neutral and allows all cards and az2+ have areas that require using only cards from your chosen side).

The issue is not power level it's variety.

There are vastly fewer decks possible if you enforce faction restrictions as you cut out a lot of cards.

Vorpal
02-05-2016, 04:22 PM
Where do you get the ardent/underworld recruiters?

I have some but no idea where they came from.

thegreybetween
02-05-2016, 04:37 PM
Where do you get the ardent/underworld recruiters?

I have some but no idea where they came from.

They drop from the faction-specific dungeons.

Fort Romor = Underworld Recruiter
Usurper = Ardent Recruiter

Zantetsuken
02-05-2016, 10:36 PM
I strongly believe that those little faction icons aren't just for show and that Tier 2 or 3 talents will benefit from them. Remember, right now we are not really aided by some massive alliance. We're a tiny army of one supported by a few troops against a few strongholds. Once we get to the later stages of the campaign where war possibly escalates and the alliances become more of a factor, we'll likely see bonuses for using certain troops in your deck. There's already ones for matching your class, soon faction too I'd reckon. Hopefully we'll even see bonuses for matching your race so we can see true Necrotic decks. But right now, this early in the campaign, such restrictive deckbuilding would only make the game harder as we don't have access to enough talent points, shard colors, rare/legendary counts to make up for the lack of diversity.

I believe diversity exists right now because we're newbies and don't have much in the way of talents or shard/rarity access. Decks should get more and more specialized as the campaign nears level cap.

sukebe
02-06-2016, 12:06 AM
The issue is not power level it's variety.

There are vastly fewer decks possible if you enforce faction restrictions as you cut out a lot of cards.

which is why I said adventure zone 1 stays fully neutral. I still feel it would be beneficial to have adventure zones 2+ have at least some areas that restrict you to your proper faction and that we get more and more such areas as the zone # increases.

sukebe
02-06-2016, 02:29 AM
which is why I said adventure zone 1 stays fully neutral. I still feel it would be beneficial to have adventure zones 2+ have at least some areas that restrict you to your proper faction and that we get more and more such areas as the zone # increases.

Also, I did some research on hex.tcgbrowser.com and came up with these numbers:

-there are 655 unaligned cards
-there are 160 underworld cards (15.57% of total cards)
-there are 212 ardent cards (20.64% of total cards)
*these numbers don't count promo cards/aa cards

This doesn't seem like it is all that restrictive to me.

(sorry for the double post, I meant to edit my last post but ended up making another instead)

Lafoote
02-06-2016, 07:42 AM
Also, I did some research on hex.tcgbrowser.com and came up with these numbers:

-there are 655 unaligned cards
-there are 160 underworld cards (15.57% of total cards)
-there are 212 ardent cards (20.64% of total cards)
*these numbers don't count promo cards/aa cards

This doesn't seem like it is all that restrictive to me.

(sorry for the double post, I meant to edit my last post but ended up making another instead)
If you don't think so, try an Underworld Cleric(playing diamond) without Ozawa or Paladin of Righteousness. Sure you can do it, you can drive with your elbows if you want to. That doesn't make it a good idea.

Xavon
02-06-2016, 09:22 AM
Also, I did some research on hex.tcgbrowser.com and came up with these numbers:

-there are 655 unaligned cards
-there are 160 underworld cards (15.57% of total cards)
-there are 212 ardent cards (20.64% of total cards)
*these numbers don't count promo cards/aa cards

This doesn't seem like it is all that restrictive to me.

(sorry for the double post, I meant to edit my last post but ended up making another instead)

These numbers are a Jedi Truth. The majority of the 655 cards consists of Actions, Constants and non-Troop artifacts. There are exactly three aligned cards in that subset, two Ardent Constants, and one Ardent Action.

-there are 248 Neutral Troops
-there are 160 Underworld Troops (25.9% of total Troops)
-there are 209 Ardent Troops (33.9% of total Troops)

Troops are a critical portion of the game, with the exception of a handful of deck archetypes, they make up a large percentage and are crucial resources (not those Resources).

And that still does not take into account the fact that various staples are aligned with one of the factions.

sukebe
02-06-2016, 01:50 PM
If you don't think so, try an Underworld Cleric(playing diamond) without Ozawa or Paladin of Righteousness. Sure you can do it, you can drive with your elbows if you want to. That doesn't make it a good idea.

lol, that is actually what I did for my first pay through. I played a necrotic cleric and played almost only necrotic troops. It was not all that hard to do so I again fail to see the problem...


These numbers are a Jedi Truth. The majority of the 655 cards consists of Actions, Constants and non-Troop artifacts. There are exactly three aligned cards in that subset, two Ardent Constants, and one Ardent Action.

-there are 248 Neutral Troops
-there are 160 Underworld Troops (25.9% of total Troops)
-there are 209 Ardent Troops (33.9% of total Troops)

Troops are a critical portion of the game, with the exception of a handful of deck archetypes, they make up a large percentage and are crucial resources (not those Resources).

And that still does not take into account the fact that various staples are aligned with one of the factions.

I included actions on purpose, as those play a huge roll in all the decks I have ever made and they are all available for both factions. Even if you only look at troops you have more than enough to do make great/powerful decks. If you have trouble doing so that is fine but don't assume the problem is shared by everyone. I used only underworld cards in my first play through as a necrotic cleric and fairly easily defeated all encounters but the wormoid queen and the Army of Myth level 6. I had to retry some fights but not very many. While I am an experienced player I am far from a great player and I have little confidence in my deck building skills and yet even I was able to do this with little trouble. Could I have made better decks using all the cards instead of a single faction? Yes I could. Was it necessary to do so? No, not even close. I was able to make a great deck that worked very well with what was available with the faction limitation.

So again, let people in az1 play whatever they want but I still very much hope that they start including encounters that require people to improve their deck building skills by working around the limitations of sticking with a side. Not all encounters need to be this way but I think it would be a very positive thing to have several of these sorts of encounters.

Lafoote
02-06-2016, 03:13 PM
Great, you're all set then. Leave the rest of us out of it.

sukebe
02-06-2016, 03:52 PM
Great, you're all set then. Leave the rest of us out of it.

way to ignore the majority of my post ( the suggestion parts) and add nothing to the discussion...

Vorpal
02-06-2016, 04:51 PM
I certainly wouldn't mind some encounters (or even entire dungeons) built that way.

sukebe
02-06-2016, 05:50 PM
I certainly wouldn't mind some encounters (or even entire dungeons) built that way.

That is exactly what I would like to see. I understand not everyone wants to deal with added deck restrictions so making it only apply to some dungeons/encounters seems like the best way to do it.

Lafoote
02-06-2016, 06:45 PM
way to ignore the majority of my post ( the suggestion parts) and add nothing to the discussion...

The only thing I can add is that I think it's a miserable, unfun idea and I hate it. For an occasional thing or "bonus" mode it won't be the end of the world. But it's still not something I would be excited about. You can still play that way any time you like. Yay!

SirLuxor
02-06-2016, 09:21 PM
For be truly i'd like a lil more restriction, factions are in war between them, and PvE campaign should be a storyline of a hero which should pass trial and challenge for become what the destiny will deserve to him, in fact there is much lore telled by every encounter, for that i really would faction not mixed between ardent and underground, but i'll surely like between same faction, that wouldn't be bad, cause they have an allegiance and have cooperated for fight during the first great war.
I think we have enought race cards, or faction cards, for make a good deck too, and we don't need forget which spells or neutral troops are in fact neutral and there is no restriction, opening to everyone a way for play a different game, with different experience everytime.
I feel the adventure like a way for live that story near the character, thinking like him, feeling what they feel.
I'll surely will never play a Orc with Vennen troops just for win, cause Vennen are they arch-enemy for example
This is my opinion i don't want say to others how play

Seluhir
02-08-2016, 08:13 AM
The talent trees should have a lot more thematic bonuses. Clerics get the 'all clerics have lifedrain' talent, for example. Add more of that. Make it so that you can choose to spend points to reward yourself for choosing to stay faction specific or class specific, etc.

Juneauz
02-08-2016, 09:05 AM
I'd love some restrictions in pve. It gets casual and boring after a while if you're able to use any card in the game. Not to mention that the lore should always be respected... You shouldn't be allowed to mix factions.

Lafoote
02-08-2016, 10:29 AM
Just consider those orcs and whatever you're playing with are mercenaries. They're just not the big, important ones that haven't been implemented yet.

PCMR-HEX
02-15-2016, 09:20 AM
That is exactly what I would like to see. I understand not everyone wants to deal with added deck restrictions so making it only apply to some dungeons/encounters seems like the best way to do it.

That's a really nice suggestion. but before that we need a way to save our decks, so it's simple to change decks. This is why I feel it should be regions/dungeons, not nodes or single encounters.

I didn't mean to provoke people about deck restriction. I was just sharing that for me, being able to use cross-faction cards in our decks felt weird. You can play King Gabriel in Fort Romor, that just feels wrong.

Pezzle
02-15-2016, 09:44 AM
The best suggestion is to leave the system alone. If players feel like limiting themselves to certain factions in a deck, good for them. You can already do that. There is no reason for Cryptozoic to go through the trouble of making further finite restrictions. The broader audience is not interested in such a thing. It is not an appreciable selling point.

Yoss
02-15-2016, 12:07 PM
The best suggestion is to leave the system alone. If players feel like limiting themselves to certain factions in a deck, good for them. You can already do that. There is no reason for Cryptozoic to go through the trouble of making further finite restrictions. The broader audience is not interested in such a thing. It is not an appreciable selling point.

I disagree. Hard Modes are something we absolutely should have, and the more the better. Faction locking could easily be one of the Hard Modes.

wolzarg
02-15-2016, 12:41 PM
I disagree. Hard Modes are something we absolutely should have, and the more the better. Faction locking could easily be one of the Hard Modes.
I agree fully with this don't force the restrictions on people but absolutely offer them as proper options as time allows. Permadeath, exp turned off, faction restriction. All these things are super cool as long as they are optional and i would love to try them all out but i would hate having them forced on me.

Salverus
02-15-2016, 01:12 PM
i dont mind any of the extra difficulty options as an extra option except perma death, since eventually your game will crash or due to some bug you are forced to concede. Perma death will then only create anger and frustration for players.

Terras
02-15-2016, 01:20 PM
If people want to play tribal, then you play tribal, leave me out of it.

This guy has the idea.

sukebe
02-15-2016, 02:16 PM
You do not have to do every single node in the game. If you do not want to make a faction locked deck then skip the nodes that require it. As long as they do not require these nodes to be completed to move on there should be no problem*.

That said, I think making people do this at least once would be good for them and these posts just make think that even more. So much whining about having to do a couple encounters with faction locked decks just because you don't want to be limited. Using limited resources to find a way to win makes you a better player. If you can't do that then maybe you need the practice.

I cannot understand all the whining this is getting when it is considerably less restrictive than the deck building requirements to complete the piranha encounter or the wormoid queen encounter with 60 gnomes, or the Army of Myth level 6 encounter. These all require decks that are considerably more restricted than a faction locked encounter and yet we don't have all of you up in arms about them do we?

*I understand some of you feel you HAVE to do everything on the map. That is logically not the case so this is not something I feel should be taken into consideration on this.

Edit: Also, this is not tribal, at least get the terminology correct. it is faction based, each of which have 4 races + all neutral races/cards.

Edit 2: also, having faction locked decks as a hard mode works I suppose, though I still feel having a few nodes that require people to do this is a good idea as it is a good lesson in working with more limited card pools and can/should be treated as a puzzle challenge.

Lafoote
02-15-2016, 03:20 PM
"Whining" from others? This whole thread seems to be a whine about NOT having faction content(which you can impose upon yourself at any time).

It's got nothing to do with what I and others can do, and everything to do with what I (and they) enjoy doing. I'm currently playing an Orc Cleric(and its Ardent, but I'm still glad I'm not forced). I can't wait until it opens up a bit because at present, virtually any cleric troop someone might like to have in a Ruby/Sap deck is Rare and one of. It was good enough to beat the Chained Goliath, but it's not really how I envisioned playing.

Besides, if you're really foaming at the mouth to play faction, why would you get to play all neutrals? It's not like the Chaostouched and Orcs are having a BBQ this weekend. Wiktor demonstrated goblins don't seem to be particularly friendly with anyone else. If you were going to do it right, someone at Hex would have to clearly delineate which neutrals could play with which faction. After all, we're wild about getting our role play on, we can't afford to to taint it.

wolzarg
02-15-2016, 06:41 PM
"Whining" from others? This whole thread seems to be a whine about NOT having faction content(which you can impose upon yourself at any time).

It's got nothing to do with what I and others can do, and everything to do with what I (and they) enjoy doing. I'm currently playing an Orc Cleric(and its Ardent, but I'm still glad I'm not forced). I can't wait until it opens up a bit because at present, virtually any cleric troop someone might like to have in a Ruby/Sap deck is Rare and one of. It was good enough to beat the Chained Goliath, but it's not really how I envisioned playing.

Besides, if you're really foaming at the mouth to play faction, why would you get to play all neutrals? It's not like the Chaostouched and Orcs are having a BBQ this weekend. Wiktor demonstrated goblins don't seem to be particularly friendly with anyone else. If you were going to do it right, someone at Hex would have to clearly delineate which neutrals could play with which faction. After all, we're wild about getting our role play on, we can't afford to to taint it.
Not to taint a fairly good argument but i think most neutrals can be considered mercenaries that will do the job if they get what they want out of it.

On the other hand that doesn't mean a Human Cleric is comfortable with a zombie raising goblin or a tentacle faced spawn of the 5th dimension so i don't know.

sukebe
02-15-2016, 08:35 PM
"Whining" from others? This whole thread seems to be a whine about NOT having faction content(which you can impose upon yourself at any time).

It's got nothing to do with what I and others can do, and everything to do with what I (and they) enjoy doing. I'm currently playing an Orc Cleric(and its Ardent, but I'm still glad I'm not forced). I can't wait until it opens up a bit because at present, virtually any cleric troop someone might like to have in a Ruby/Sap deck is Rare and one of. It was good enough to beat the Chained Goliath, but it's not really how I envisioned playing.

Besides, if you're really foaming at the mouth to play faction, why would you get to play all neutrals? It's not like the Chaostouched and Orcs are having a BBQ this weekend. Wiktor demonstrated goblins don't seem to be particularly friendly with anyone else. If you were going to do it right, someone at Hex would have to clearly delineate which neutrals could play with which faction. After all, we're wild about getting our role play on, we can't afford to to taint it.

I admit I let my annoyance at the close mindedness that seems to be going on in this thread get the better of me in my last post and I apologize for using the word "whining". That said, you seem to have read that word and nothing else in my last post.

I will bold my main point this time so it is easier to notice:
Why is you complain about faction locked encounters and not about the Wormoid Queen, the Piranhas, or the Army of Myth of level 6? Each of these encounters require you to use a very limited pool of cards if you want any real chance at defeating them. They each force you to ignore a considerably larger amount of cards when building your deck than a simple faction locked encounter would and yet you are not raising arms against them. This does not seem to fit in with your arguments in this thread.

I am not trying to be rude or a smart alec here, I am just genuinely confused on how a faction lock that will cause you to be unable to use maybe 1/4 of the available cards at most is somehow worse than these encounters?

I also fail to see why you feel that just because you do not enjoy faction specific decks that they should not make any encounters that use this system. Is this not a game made for many different people with many different things they like? Why is it that those who do not agree with you and like this kind of set up must play pretend and enforce these rules ourselves instead of having it built into a small part of the game like the system you enjoy? Once again, I am not saying everything act 2+ should be faction locked, far from it in fact. I am only saying I would like to see 1-2 faction locked encounters every now and then (1 per act seems like it would be fine, though I think 2 would be better that is clearly not a thought shared by all). How is this so detrimental to you that you need to be rude and ignore most of my posts?

I understand not liking it, I don't like a lot of things you say but I don't try to get all up in your face and get all upset at you for posting about things you want to see in a thread specifically made to talk about those things do I? I see no reason why everyone can't live and let live in this situation. If they make a single faction locked node in adventure zone 2 would that really be that bad? I and people like me would be happy to have something we like in the game and you and people like you could either ignore it completely or do it once then ignore it.

hex_colin
02-15-2016, 08:46 PM
I fully expect that there will be a "faction-locked" mode in the future. But, given the huge amount of work that went into the PVE patch systems, the still relatively limited pool of cards (especially when you consider faction/class combos), and the general working philosophy of folks being able to play their cards the way they want to, this is what we have FOR NOW.

Bottom line - you can choose to faction lock yourself if you want. The game won't stop you. People should play the game however they want to play it. Arguing that the game should force folks to do something they may not want to do isn't a good side of the argument to be on.

sukebe
02-15-2016, 09:34 PM
I fully expect that there will be a "faction-locked" mode in the future. But, given the huge amount of work that went into the PVE patch systems, the still relatively limited pool of cards (especially when you consider faction/class combos), and the general working philosophy of folks being able to play their cards the way they want to, this is what we have FOR NOW.

Bottom line - you can choose to faction lock yourself if you want. The game won't stop you. People should play the game however they want to play it. Arguing that the game should force folks to do something they may not want to do isn't a good side of the argument to be on.

Alright I give up. I just don't understand why people feel every single node in every single adventure zone has to match their own personal likes and dislikes. As long as the faction locked node was not required to move on in the story I still don't see why it hurts people so very much.

I will keep my mouth shut and stop trying express my wants/desires on these forums as it seems to upset people so very much. This has been happening more and more on these forums which saddens me a lot. it is one thing for people to disagree with me (that happens all the time and I sometimes even learn from it) but all the vitriol in this thread at my desire to have just 1 node that is not required to be accessed to continue the story is enough to make wish I did not even try to participate.

Halsey
02-15-2016, 09:43 PM
I disagree. Hard Modes are something we absolutely should have, and the more the better. Faction locking could easily be one of the Hard Modes.

Absolutely agree 100%. That is exactly what this should be, a tick box, or series of tick boxes on character creation. Enables all kinds of hard modes, ranging from faction only, faction plus neutral, rarity restrictions, (pure common only pauper could be interestingly difficult with the limited card pool), even further shard restrictions, one loss dead 'permadeath' characters. The possibilities, and combinations there of make for nearly endless replay ability. As long as this kind of thing is optional I'm all for it.


i dont mind any of the extra difficulty options as an extra option except perma death, since eventually your game will crash or due to some bug you are forced to concede. Perma death will then only create anger and frustration for players.

I would have agreed with you before running a few characters through the campaign. Though I'd have been more likely to blame shard screw / flood for the inevitable rage. Now, meh, I lose I start over, not that big of a deal to remake the character. Maybe you need to have hit max level on at least two characters before a permadeath type mode is available? I could certainly see someone new to the game getting very upset due to RNG or bugs. Beyond that though, again as long as it's opt in, I don't see a problem.


You do not have to do every single node in the game. If you do not want to make a faction locked deck then skip the nodes that require it. As long as they do not require these nodes to be completed to move on there should be no problem*.

That said, I think making people do this at least once would be good for them and these posts just make think that even more. So much whining about having to do a couple encounters with faction locked decks just because you don't want to be limited. Using limited resources to find a way to win makes you a better player. If you can't do that then maybe you need the practice.

I cannot understand all the whining this is getting when it is considerably less restrictive than the deck building requirements to complete the piranha encounter or the wormoid queen encounter with 60 gnomes, or the Army of Myth level 6 encounter. These all require decks that are considerably more restricted than a faction locked encounter and yet we don't have all of you up in arms about them do we?

*I understand some of you feel you HAVE to do everything on the map. That is logically not the case so this is not something I feel should be taken into consideration on this.

Edit: Also, this is not tribal, at least get the terminology correct. it is faction based, each of which have 4 races + all neutral races/cards.

Edit 2: also, having faction locked decks as a hard mode works I suppose, though I still feel having a few nodes that require people to do this is a good idea as it is a good lesson in working with more limited card pools and can/should be treated as a puzzle challenge.


I admit I let my annoyance at the close mindedness that seems to be going on in this thread get the better of me in my last post and I apologize for using the word "whining". That said, you seem to have read that word and nothing else in my last post.

I will bold my main point this time so it is easier to notice:
Why is you complain about faction locked encounters and not about the Wormoid Queen, the Piranhas, or the Army of Myth of level 6? Each of these encounters require you to use a very limited pool of cards if you want any real chance at defeating them. They each force you to ignore a considerably larger amount of cards when building your deck than a simple faction locked encounter would and yet you are not raising arms against them. This does not seem to fit in with your arguments in this thread.

I am not trying to be rude or a smart alec here, I am just genuinely confused on how a faction lock that will cause you to be unable to use maybe 1/4 of the available cards at most is somehow worse than these encounters?

I also fail to see why you feel that just because you do not enjoy faction specific decks that they should not make any encounters that use this system. Is this not a game made for many different people with many different things they like? Why is it that those who do not agree with you and like this kind of set up must play pretend and enforce these rules ourselves instead of having it built into a small part of the game like the system you enjoy? Once again, I am not saying everything act 2+ should be faction locked, far from it in fact. I am only saying I would like to see 1-2 faction locked encounters every now and then (1 per act seems like it would be fine, though I think 2 would be better that is clearly not a thought shared by all). How is this so detrimental to you that you need to be rude and ignore most of my posts?

I understand not liking it, I don't like a lot of things you say but I don't try to get all up in your face and get all upset at you for posting about things you want to see in a thread specifically made to talk about those things do I? I see no reason why everyone can't live and let live in this situation. If they make a single faction locked node in adventure zone 2 would that really be that bad? I and people like me would be happy to have something we like in the game and you and people like you could either ignore it completely or do it once then ignore it.

I love the idea of restricted deck building. To be clear where I'm coming from, my first character in the campaign was a vennen mage. I personnaly insisted on seeing all the content with him before I went through it with a different character, or even broke the main theme of his deck. At this point he has beaten almost every available encounter, (the two remaining exceptions are AoM 5 and 6, give me time) and every dungeon with a vennen troop heavy, egg themed deck. I don't mean I went back and did them that way, that's how he leveled all the way through, I did go back to the piranhas at level 7 or 8, but the rest were as they came. Had some frustrating moments, I really do not recommend taking on the worm queen that way, especially not with any gnomes in the deck, but it can be done. I may have had an ardent card slip in there at some point, but I don't think so, I argued with myself about including a necrotic or two, and a couple neutrals at various points, (the vampires did wind up spending a lot of time in there :-}) if I included anything ardent it was accidental and not intended, I'd love a switch that enforced that when I wanted it to so I wouldn't have to qualify that statement.

All of that said, I completely hate the idea of an encounter 'enforcing' these kind of restrictions. Your examples do not anywhere make you unable to attempt them with any deck you chose, they do punish you harshly for not building to suit the encounter. How you chose to do that is entirely in your hands. While I enjoyed discovering the content with my mage, I'm certain that approach would drive a number of players, especially new ones away. It certainly would if they were forced to.

The part of the argument I don't get at all is that using opposing faction cards wrecks the immersion or role play elements. To me that's dead backwards, being unable to include the opposing faction would be far more damaging to role playing. Fantasy literature, movies games, etc. are all full of the heroes being the individuals that look past the us vs. them mentality, I know my characters have all saved someone from the opposing side from a horde of zombies on the way to the smoldering dead. I suppose for the sake of completion I should have at least one let them be eaten and see what happens, but that's a different discussion. Whose to say a couple troops from that group didn't decide to come along on a future mission and help me out in thanks. Your character is supposed to be at least a little special. Every possible interaction you're forced to dismiss because 'the rules don't allow it' takes away from your ability to role play, they certainly don't add to it.

I think cards like the recruiters, and talents like the affinity talents are the way to get what you want. I also think the devs are doing a great job at it so far, let them keep doing it their way, and I think you'll be presently surprised. Already, my cleric and warrior decks give heavy preference to matching their class, the advantage isn't quite as strong for a mage, but I think that's intentional, allowing the mages to go more action heavy in their decks without feeling like they are passing up a ton of power. Use the carrot, not the stick, and certainly not the rules engine if it can be at all avoided.

sukebe
02-15-2016, 09:50 PM
Absolutely agree 100%. That is exactly what this should be, a tick box, or series of tick boxes on character creation. Enables all kinds of hard modes, ranging from faction only, faction plus neutral, rarity restrictions, (pure common only pauper could be interestingly difficult with the limited card pool), even further shard restrictions, one loss dead 'permadeath' characters. The possibilities, and combinations there of make for nearly endless replay ability. As long as this kind of thing is optional I'm all for it.



I would have agreed with you before running a few characters through the campaign. Though I'd have been more likely to blame shard screw / flood for the inevitable rage. Now, meh, I lose I start over, not that big of a deal to remake the character. Maybe you need to have hit max level on at least two characters before a permadeath type mode is available? I could certainly see someone new to the game getting very upset due to RNG or bugs. Beyond that though, again as long as it's opt in, I don't see a problem.





I love the idea of restricted deck building. To be clear where I'm coming from, my first character in the campaign was a vennen mage. I personnaly insisted on seeing all the content with him before I went through it with a different character, or even broke the main theme of his deck. At this point he has beaten almost every available encounter, (the two remaining exceptions are AoM 5 and 6, give me time) and every dungeon with a vennen troop heavy, egg themed deck. I don't mean I went back and did them that way, that's how he leveled all the way through, I did go back to the piranhas at level 7 or 8, but the rest were as they came. Had some frustrating moments, I really do not recommend taking on the worm queen that way, especially not with any gnomes in the deck, but it can be done. I may have had an ardent card slip in there at some point, but I don't think so, I argued with myself about including a necrotic or two, and a couple neutrals at various points, (the vampires did wind up spending a lot of time in there :-}) if I included anything ardent it was accidental and not intended, I'd love a switch that enforced that when I wanted it to so I wouldn't have to qualify that statement.

All of that said, I completely hate the idea of an encounter 'enforcing' these kind of restrictions. Your examples do not anywhere make you unable to attempt them with any deck you chose, they do punish you harshly for not building to suit the encounter. How you chose to do that is entirely in your hands. While I enjoyed discovering the content with my mage, I'm certain that approach would drive a number of players, especially new ones away. It certainly would if they were forced to.

The part of the argument I don't get at all is that using opposing faction cards wrecks the immersion or role play elements. To me that's dead backwards, being unable to include the opposing faction would be far more damaging to role playing. Fantasy literature, movies games, etc. are all full of the heroes being the individuals that look past the us vs. them mentality, I know my characters have all saved someone from the opposing side from a horde of zombies on the way to the smoldering dead. I suppose for the sake of completion I should have at least one let them be eaten and see what happens, but that's a different discussion. Whose to say a couple troops from that group didn't decide to come along on a future mission and help me out in thanks. Your character is supposed to be at least a little special. Every possible interaction you're forced to dismiss because 'the rules don't allow it' takes away from your ability to role play, they certainly don't add to it.

I think cards like the recruiters, and talents like the affinity talents are the way to get what you want. I also think the devs are doing a great job at it so far, let them keep doing it their way, and I think you'll be presently surprised. Already, my cleric and warrior decks give heavy preference to matching their class, the advantage isn't quite as strong for a mage, but I think that's intentional, allowing the mages to go more action heavy in their decks without feeling like they are passing up a ton of power. Use the carrot, not the stick, and certainly not the rules engine if it can be at all avoided.

Thank you for this. I don't entirely agree with all you said but you are the only one who actually read what I said and responded directly to it. it makes me feel good that at least 1 person took the time to do this so it was not like I was talking to myself. It made my night and makes it so I don't feel entirely useless :-)

SirLuxor
02-15-2016, 10:09 PM
Alright I give up. I just don't understand why people feel every single node in every single adventure zone has to match their own personal likes and dislikes. As long as the faction locked node was not required to move on in the story I still don't see why it hurts people so very much.

I will keep my mouth shut and stop trying express my wants/desires on these forums as it seems to upset people so very much. This has been happening more and more on these forums which saddens me a lot. it is one thing for people to disagree with me (that happens all the time and I sometimes even learn from it) but all the vitriol in this thread at my desire to have just 1 node that is not required to be accessed to continue the story is enough to make wish I did not even try to participate.

I'm sorry about what you feel concerning that discussion and IF people use vitriol in their answer, they should be only ashamed about that, cause this is a forum and we come here for talk and argumenting our ideas.
I want just share my experience, i finished the campaing for the 3rd time before starting farm, and i've used 3 different races (human - Orc - Shin'hare) totally faction locked with some neutral creatures (just shin'hare was only shin'hare) and i won every nodes and i'm not a such of pro player, so the campaign is not so terrible to be frustrating with this kind of limitation
Sure, we can auto-limitate ourself, but for my experience what makes a game boring is the weird obstination of people at play just what they know without think is a different way. a faction restriction is just something which put the lore of this game on the top of the importance, more than everything.
This is a lore based game, cards have reference on the story, factions was created cause a war happened many years ago, forcing creatures to decide to fight toghether or die.
I think the importance in a lore game based, where what you're playing is not just a card but a piece of story, should be important, mostly in a rpg game where you live a story, advance level by level.
Idk maybe my point of view is terrible, but thinking in real life... i don't think to could accept to fight side by side to my dead father, cause that necrotic with his body could give me a more easy win, or ask to jews during the WWII to join the Nazi army for win the war ignoring everything, or a comunist in american army during cold war...
Maybe this part was a lil rude but i think to have just transfer only a real part of our history for get the real point of what we should feel, i hope to don't have offended no one and in that case i really apologiaes.
I would add a thing, some weeks ago, i've joined a cup where there was some restrictive rules (only female cards), we was so few but the tourney go on and during the tourney i could say to have meet very very few deck based on female cards, this because was more easy play around the rules and create battle hoppers... rinoceros.... than try to do something different.
I just remember at all of you which a same meta, for LOOOOONG time make people bored, who lose and who win, same for the campaign, if you're not allowed to respect some different rules... this don't change nothing from farming or use a race and not another... experimentations make the game not hard, but a challenge for my opinion.
At last why we don't should take the same best deck of the frozen arena and just play that here? or a wintermoon, cressida... or the Titania's deck, we can in the campaign so why not.
i've read some guide just for curiosity... i was a lil sad from the low fantasy of this decks, like i'm sad when i see the same deck list in every month top decks but i'm going off-topic
I hope to have explained my point of view without hurting the sensibility of no one and again, in that case i really apologiaes if i've used strong words comparing real tragic events at the story of a game (even if that game is cleary inspired from our story, japanese... indians of america... indian illjuni)

Unspecified
02-15-2016, 11:30 PM
It still seems like everyone arguing for faction-lock are only looking at this from the perspective of someone with full playsets. I have a full playset as well and so for me faction-lock is a minor annoyance at worst.

Go look at this from the perspective of someone who does NOT have every single card in the game and only has the 200 starter cards and what they find in PvE. Faction-lock becomes a significant problem really quickly. Do I really want to buy that Brutal Commander for my Orc deck when I vastly prefer Vennen?

I said it many posts ago, significantly restricting the card choices hurts new players in a way that would be detrimental to player retention. That is the only reason necessary to not do it.

SirLuxor
02-16-2016, 12:02 AM
I think is a good point but i need disagree about that, i'm a free player and after a year i'm still far to have a full playset, in fact i can say just to have all common and uncommon, much rares and some leggendaries, i worked hard for get what i've now, i'm not saying new player should pay or farm, or live that game hardly cause that can only make quit many of them and i think is not right.
But AH is not that expensive and arena and PvE can give many cards and golds, or plat if someone would sell what he found not usefull or extra.
For my experience in this campaign as a free player with a good playset was not so hard, and i know many others player which time by time are building their deck (i'm an admin of a fb page so i talk for directly experience), the game is that too, a step-by-step game, where you improve yourself, obtain the best result without work for that don't seem so good for my point of view.
And i need say, when i entered a years ago, the cards wasn't selled for 1...2...10...50 gold of BUYOUT, and only playing with real opponent was the only form of reward (100 gold) for can buy cards which was selled at 300 - 400 gold minimun (i remember concubunny and howling brave starting at 3k gold... and i've selled some for 7k just for say how much is changed in better now). the situation is changed so much with the improve of the arena and the campaign which sometimes i think to have lost my time entering before the arena release, where my only job was check AH, buy at low for sell at high, i got my first common playset full in like 7 months... now you can get in 1 or less...
As i said is a good point defend the new player and don't let them escape cause more players there are more the game will grown, but the situation is not that tragic for my opinion.

Yoss
02-16-2016, 09:54 AM
It still seems like everyone arguing for faction-lock are only looking at this from the perspective of someone with full playsets. I have a full playset as well and so for me faction-lock is a minor annoyance at worst.

Go look at this from the perspective of someone who does NOT have every single card in the game and only has the 200 starter cards and what they find in PvE. Faction-lock becomes a significant problem really quickly. Do I really want to buy that Brutal Commander for my Orc deck when I vastly prefer Vennen?

I said it many posts ago, significantly restricting the card choices hurts new players in a way that would be detrimental to player retention. That is the only reason necessary to not do it.

I am playing HardCory Faction-lock on all my characters, despite having a full collection. So you're actually guessing wrong, at least in my case. The game is definitely winnable with such harsh restrictions, you just won't be likely to beat the hardest (optional) encounters. So far I went all the way with HardCory Faction-locked Coyotle Cleric and I'm just starting Rose Knights with my HCFL Elf Mage.

Turtlewing
02-16-2016, 12:28 PM
I am playing HardCory Faction-lock on all my characters, despite having a full collection. So you're actually guessing wrong, at least in my case. The game is definitely winnable with such harsh restrictions, you just won't be likely to beat the hardest (optional) encounters. So far I went all the way with HardCory Faction-locked Coyotle Cleric and I'm just starting Rose Knights with my HCFL Elf Mage.

The thing is. as you demonstrate, you don't have to have any support from the game itself to do that.

If the hard mode is fun, you can juts do it. Now CoreyHard could use better filter support in the deck editor, but faction only is supported already by toggling the race filters, and adding nodes to the map that force hard modes is more than a little silly.

The argument against additional restrictions is simply that not everyone likes them and nothing prohibits you from restricting yourself in any way you see fit. Want to play with permadeath? delete you character when they die. Want to plat singleton only? don't include more than 1 of each card. Want to play faction only? don't include cross faction cards in your deck. Want to play "void society and goblins only"? just do it.

Now, nodes that have mechanics which interact with the faction of cards are fine (though it should be used sparingly like effects that affect card rarity are). Like a boss that grants Affinity:<your champion's faction>: this gets +1/+0 to all troops. or an Ardent only dungeon node with a champion who's charge power is [3] gain control of all underworld troops.

What's not cool is making a global mechanic that discourages combining factions or nodes that reject any deck that has mixed factions as illegal. What's also not cool is over using the faction mechanics. That last one is subjective but I'd say they have some room to expand it but not a lot.

Yoss
02-16-2016, 12:54 PM
The difference is that I'd like to have different/better rewards for completing various Hard Modes, especially rewards that give "braggin' rights" like sleeves (or the yet-to-be-implemented Achievements system). Right now, there's no reward other than personal satisfaction.

Turtlewing
02-16-2016, 01:18 PM
The difference is that I'd like to have different/better rewards for completing various Hard Modes, especially rewards that give "braggin' rights" like sleeves (or the yet-to-be-implemented Achievements system). Right now, there's no reward other than personal satisfaction.

I oppose that idea on the basis that asking for your preferred hard mode to give better rewards always sounds like "I'm buturt that the way I like to play isn't objectively the best" to me (or alternatively, "I play this way because I'm bad at having fun and I want everyone else to suffer too").

Though, I will say that sleeves would be alright they're a good bragging rights reward that can be tied to arbitrarily obscure things without compromising the intent of sleeves or anyone's fun IMO. Someday when we actually have a full 30 levels of campaign with all 6 classes, raids, keep defense etc. Adding sleeves as a reward for completing certain content with decks that pass stricter validation than is required would be cool.