Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 78910 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 93

Thread: The BEST possible change to make before release:

  1. #81
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Sterling, VA
    Quote Originally Posted by Elfis View Post
    Jai151 : Leage of Legends is a terrible example.

    Response: Yes, probably. I play it, so it came to mind. The point is that some people calculate everything and some don't, and that won't change when you up the numbers; only the percentage of each type of player will change. Also, it really isn't that hard to type your resource into the fireball box and see how much damage it will do, if it's not already apparent, and it's not hard to have the fireball tooltip show your current max damage. I think you are worrying way too much about math. In fact, I bet you can more accurately determine the results of potential actions than you could in a physical game regardless of numbers, because the computer will handle the numbers in the background all and show you visually the expected results of your actions.

    Jai151 : It's very important to be able to calculate the exact results of an impending action so that you don't make an error based on a small miscalculation.

    Response: Even if that is critical, the computer will do it. THE COMPUTER WILL DO IT! It can show you how much life a player will lose if you attack. It can display it in the form of pretty moving lifebars.
    Having the computer show the "pretty moving lifebars" doesn't solve the problem. There are lots of possible responses, and you have a limited time to respond. If you waste the Murder on the wrong creature because you were off by 2 power in a 1,000 power attack, that's not going to be covered by the lifebars showing how much gets through if you block in several different ways. The computer also cannot instantly toss out possibilities that you would instantly not consider, so it can run into situations where you have a large number of things on the table and wind up with so many permutations that they can't be displayed in any kind of elegant form. If you have just two creatures on the board, and the opponent attacks with three, there are 13 different possibilities in how you could block. Now imagine a little later in the game, with you having 5 and the computer having 7. Now add in removal spells. How would a computer display all of that information?

    There are things that computers are very good at. There are also things that the human brain is very good at. Math belongs to computers, but weighing options and responses is something the human brain is much better than a computer at. By artificially inflating the numbers, you're putting a wall of math in front of the meat of the strategy.
    The Last of the Dragon Lords (+Pro)

  2. #82
    This thread demonstrates 2 interesting points: People desperately fear change, and that people think really hard about card games.

    The arguments about opening design space that adds no value are valid points. Complexity without depth really is just wankery. Making the numbers arbitrarily larger, especially into the hundreds or thousands, would be just ridiculous. The level of granularity would be wasted, because for ease of play no one would have a power/toughness with a significant digit past the 100's or 1000's place.

    However, I do agree that there is room for some increased granularity. I personally think that 50 life would be a pretty sweet spot. Unfortunately, it's not easy to really rebalance every card for a different style of play. (3/3 would be the new 1/1, there would be a big difference between 1/3 and 0/3 which makes room for swarms of fractional offense, double digit offense would be an indicator of game-ending attack ability rather than an almost immediate death sentence if not blocked/blockable, and so on.)

    I agree with the sentiment that the numbers proposed (200, 1000, 2000, 10,000) are way too big. It would just be a mess, and comparisons between troops and spells would be exhausting. But I also agree that increasing the life total would create more opportunities for gameplay. There would be a lot of unused space for the sake of sanity, but there are just more useable bands of troops and spells with a little more room to maneuver, especially at the low end of troop and spell costs.

  3. #83
    If the numbers were to be changed at all (I *highly* doubt it.) I agree with GreyGriffin. The lifepool should be represented as {x|x E Z & 30<=x<=50}

    Just sayin...
    Last edited by Pwn1nP3nquin; 06-05-2013 at 02:40 PM.

  4. #84
    Quote Originally Posted by jai151 View Post
    There are things that computers are very good at. There are also things that the human brain is very good at. Math belongs to computers, but weighing options and responses is something the human brain is much better than a computer at. By artificially inflating the numbers, you're putting a wall of math in front of the meat of the strategy.
    Not entirely true, but if the game is so complicated that I need AIDA (or possibly her sister Artificial Intelligence Blocking Assistant) to help me decide what creatures to block, I'm going to start asking why I even bother playing.

  5. #85
    Quote Originally Posted by Elfis View Post
    Facade : How exactly would your proposed change make the resource system more exciting?

    Response: It allows the creation of a greater variety of resource cards. Say I want to make a card that can be used every other turn, gives 3 different colors, and can be sacrificed to do a certain amount of damage to a target. How much resource should it give? 1? 2? How much damage? 1? 2? Increasing the number scale lets me effectively give it 1.4 mana and do 1.6 damage, for example, without using decimals.
    And you were accusing me of creating a niche resource card. As you said...

    Quote Originally Posted by Elfis View Post
    It IS fun to have a variety of resource choices and more precisely tune your deck with them. The problem is that with the current resource system, the options are too limited to create varied resource cards without either overpowering them or adding a restriction that makes them a niche card.
    Anyways, my first counter-argument is that IF you want to make more complicated resources with all sorts of additional abilities, HEX already has that capability. Increasing the numeric scale provides very little new design space. As I said, each basic resource already has four different knobs that can be tweaked. This allows plenty of opportunity to create non-basic resources without drawbacks.

    However, I feel you glossed over the most important point against increased number of resources provided per card. As said on the main website...

    Quote Originally Posted by
    We built it that way because we know you’re not here for “the resource system,” you’re here to kill people with dragons, create ultimate combos, and use Blood Magic to murder every last troop on your opponent’s side of the table.
    Offering perfectly balanced choices that come with a range of number of resources provided begins making the system too convoluted both to design and to play. Analysis is simplest when one card provides one resource. For example, you lose the guideline where a 5 cost creature typically comes out on turn 5. No longer can you use the rule of thumb that your deck should be 40% resource cards. Second, costs of creatures are now much more difficult to develop since now there are many more options and possibilities. You have claimed this as a benefit in that you will be able to say everything can be perfectly costed, but the greater the granularity, the more time that will need to be spent on each card to find that perfect balance. Third, deckbuilding and maintaining a consistent curve is more difficult since at best you will have average values of resources on any given turn. Once you have resource cards providing different values all in the same deck, you now get to recalculate your expected curve... and you get to do this for every single deck. Statistical analysis by an AI of your deck to make sure you got the resources right is practically mandatory.

    In summary, to keep HEX a game and not a statistics exercise, the resource system needs to stay pretty much one resource per one card. Yes, you get the ability to perfectly balance abilities if you have larger number scale, but this relatively small design space is not worth the massive cost in the added difficulty in maintaining the flow of the game from a designers point of view and the difficulty in creating functional decks from the player's point of view.

  6. #86
    Sigh. A restaurant moves from the desert to the city, but is still serving a teaspoon of water with each meal.

    Thread: We should serve a free cup of water with each meal, maybe 2. The cost is now insignificant and a lot of people would enjoy the extra water. In addition, it is healthful to drink many cups of water per day and as an extra added benefit, it is easy to stir drink mix into the cups to flavor the water.

    Poster 1: We've been serving teaspoons of water forever. You'll confuse the waiters.

    Poster 2: I don't think there's enough water in the city to do that.

    Poster 3: LOL, I drank 2 cups of hard whisky once and I got really sick.

    Poster 4: Sure, why not just give them 50 gallons of water; it'll be 50,000 times as good!

    Poster 5: You die from drinking just a few gallons of water.

    Poster 6: Noobs, I can stir my drink mix into my teaspoon just fine!

    Poster 7: What if you spill it? A teaspoon is no big deal, but if you dump a couple cups of water in your lap, it will suck. And if there's drink mix stirred in, whoa boy!

    Poster 8: I hate water.

    Poster 9: We would have to change the menus. It's too much work.

    Poster 10: The cups are ugly; the spoon is much more elegant.

    Poster 11: What if we wanted to move back to the desert? We'd have to change everything again!

    Poster 12: The cup has more surface area than the spoon, so more water is wasted through evaporation.

    Poster 13: My toilet uses a lot of water!

    Poster 14: The change may confuse people.

    Poster 15: Some people won't even drink the water. It just gets in the way.

    Poster 16: Eddie's Fried Cactus Extravaganza tried that and they went broke. Their food sucked too.

    Poster 17: I've been drinking a teaspoon of water with my meals forever and it works very well. I tried drinking a whole cup once and I didn't like it.

    Poster 18: ...

    Oh, you internet.
    Last edited by Elfis; 06-06-2013 at 11:07 AM. Reason: Just had to add another

  7. #87
    I think you win some sort of "longest analogy" achievement.

  8. #88
    I see the point, but card games aren't the same as a restaurant - generally there is no luck involved in eating/ordering, nor is it competitive. Find an example that is, and you have a fantastic point.
    Xenavire, proud guild leader for The Lions Share.

  9. #89
    Except that's not even remotely what the thread is suggesting. Here's what's happening, using your restaurant analogy:

    A restaurant is going to open. It's completely automated and is controlled by a computer. Current system has been tested to provide a 33cL bottle of water with each meal.

    Thread: We should provide a 1L bottle of water with each meal instead. It's not going to increase the per-meal cost. I mean, we'll have to redesign the entire system, reprogram the computer, and redo all the system tests, therefore increasing the set-up costs and delaying the opening for a year or so, but who cares?

    And oooh, oooh, as a bonus, EVERYONE is going to have to drink the whole bottle, whether they want it or not. Everyone's going to LOVE this.

  10. #90
    You guys are way, way too afraid of numbers that aren't even that big. Just because Bernie's across the street (MAGIC) hasn't taken advantage of what can be done in the city doesn't mean it's that hard. THE COMPUTER CAN DO IT (unless you prevent it from using both large numbers and decimals; then it can't do as much).
    Last edited by Elfis; 06-07-2013 at 09:38 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts