Page 48 of 75 FirstFirst ... 38464748495058 ... LastLast
Results 471 to 480 of 749

Thread: [Discussion] Resource Screw

  1. #471
    I think it hurts worse when you get flooded in one round, and in the next round you get screwed. Happened to me a few times.

  2. #472
    Quote Originally Posted by Mushroom_C1oud View Post
    This has happened to me too. I have also gotten a Triumvirate on the 6th turn. It goes both ways.
    Yes, but if there was a fix for the resource system to prevent such drastic paralysis of game play, it doesn't mean you'll stop getting god hands. RNG will still be possible to give you awesome hands and make sick plays. I know you weren't saying this, I just thought this point was worth being made.

    Some fix for the resource screw problem would allow for some interaction instead of the rare occasion where games are decided with zero interaction. Sure, some games will be lost due to not hitting your 5th or 6th resource, but not being able to play any cards is a disaster and can easily cause this game to lose players (especially when it happens in a tournament deciding match).

  3. #473
    Quote Originally Posted by Diesbudt View Post
    What do you consider Resource Screwed? Basically how many shards in what turn do you feel means not screw?
    If I lost the game I was resource screwed and the system needs to be changed.

  4. #474
    Quote Originally Posted by Thrawn View Post
    If I lost the game I was resource screwed and the system needs to be changed.
    Funny. :P

    Why can't the extreme case be covered? Does anyone really want games that are decided when one player cannot play any cards? I don't enjoy winning when this happens, never mind losing because of it.

    As rare as it is, it happens. I'm liberal with my resource allocation in drafts, but it still happens. Even in single shard decks.

  5. #475
    Quote Originally Posted by hexnaes View Post
    Funny. :P

    Why can't the extreme case be covered? Does anyone really want games that are decided when one player cannot play any cards? I don't enjoy winning when this happens, never mind losing because of it.

    As rare as it is, it happens. I'm liberal with my resource allocation in drafts, but it still happens. Even in single shard decks.
    Al lot of us do enjoy the effects the randomization has on typical games to the point we'd rather put up with the times that screw/flood are problems than give up the frequent benefits to fix flood/screw.

  6. #476
    I really enjoy the way Hex is now with it's RNG. I am not opposed to any changes in the RNG as long as it doesn't affect how I play Hex right now. Having said that, I don't believe that changing the RNG for more favorable outcomes will not affect how everyone plays the game.

  7. #477
    Quote Originally Posted by Turtlewing View Post
    Al lot of us do enjoy the effects the randomization has on typical games to the point we'd rather put up with the times that screw/flood are problems than give up the frequent benefits to fix flood/screw.
    You enjoy it when your opponent can't play anything? Or you enjoy it when you can't play anything?

    Saying you like the good part of RNG (god hands) is not sufficient. You can still have the excitement of god hands without the need to have crippling unplayable hands from RNG . You don't have to put up with screw/flood just to have good RNG.

    I love RNG, but if it's causing some games to go without getting a chance to play a card why would you want to keep that around if you knew you could fix it?

    It would be similar to turn 1 combos. I'm sure everyone would agree that turn 1 combo kills are detrimental to the game, no matter how unlikely. Why is resource screw any different?

  8. #478
    Quote Originally Posted by hexnaes View Post
    Funny. :P

    Why can't the extreme case be covered? Does anyone really want games that are decided when one player cannot play any cards? I don't enjoy winning when this happens, never mind losing because of it.

    As rare as it is, it happens. I'm liberal with my resource allocation in drafts, but it still happens. Even in single shard decks.
    Hold on... Why do extreme cases (I.E rare) have to be covered? Where if the fun if there is never any risk? May as well go play chess if there is no luck involved anymore.

    I know it sucks to lose to luck. I hate it with a passion. I dislike my wins when my opponent gets a lot of bad luck. But I can understand that without those extreme cases, I wouldn't actually want to play as much. If I never had bad luck streaks, I could never appreciate my good luck. I would just find the game stale and repetitive.

    So I will happily stick with extreme cases now and then. As a player, it is up to you to try and cover those bases yourself, not ask for the mechanics to change because you suck too much to roll with the punches. (I mean that in a general sense, not focusing on any single comment here.)

    And that is why the game is best of 3. That is meant to cover those extreme cases. It doesn't mean they can't happen, but if you are losing a Bo3 to screw or flood, that sucks and you should look at what your deck may have been doing wrong. I have been there, lost to luck, and I accept that I may have needed an extra resource, or a less steep curve.

    I think this conversation, as always, is going nowhere. And as always, we have to point out that CZE has repeatedly confirmed they are not changing the system. End of story. No negotiations. Keep complaining, but keep in mind that you are only hurting yourselves with these high hopes.
    Xenavire, proud guild leader for The Lions Share.
    http://i307.photobucket.com/albums/n...erlinsmall.png

  9. #479
    Quote Originally Posted by Xenavire View Post
    Hold on... Why do extreme cases (I.E rare) have to be covered? Where if the fun if there is never any risk? May as well go play chess if there is no luck involved anymore.

    I know it sucks to lose to luck. I hate it with a passion. I dislike my wins when my opponent gets a lot of bad luck. But I can understand that without those extreme cases, I wouldn't actually want to play as much. If I never had bad luck streaks, I could never appreciate my good luck. I would just find the game stale and repetitive.

    So I will happily stick with extreme cases now and then. As a player, it is up to you to try and cover those bases yourself, not ask for the mechanics to change because you suck too much to roll with the punches. (I mean that in a general sense, not focusing on any single comment here.)

    And that is why the game is best of 3. That is meant to cover those extreme cases. It doesn't mean they can't happen, but if you are losing a Bo3 to screw or flood, that sucks and you should look at what your deck may have been doing wrong. I have been there, lost to luck, and I accept that I may have needed an extra resource, or a less steep curve.

    I think this conversation, as always, is going nowhere. And as always, we have to point out that CZE has repeatedly confirmed they are not changing the system. End of story. No negotiations. Keep complaining, but keep in mind that you are only hurting yourselves with these high hopes.

    I think we're starting to finally get somewhere in this conversation. I didn't realize people thought that bad RNG was necessary for good RNG to take place.

    You don't have to keep the bad RNG to have the good RNG. It seems that you think that you need bad luck to appreciate good luck. I completely disagree.

    Please understand there is a difference between not being able to play the game due to resource screw, and not getting an optimal hand to deal with the situation. You can still have crazy awesome good luck games! The only think I want to eliminate is the chance that games aren't decided because one person couldn't play any cards. Surely you can see the difference?

    It's much easier to swallow (and continue to play) if you think "well I didn't draw one of my removal spells, but I still put up a fight!" after a loss. It's more difficult to keep paying for a game when you lose because RNG gods deemed you to not play any cards that game.

    Edit: I would go so far as to say that if "extreme bad luck (no cards playable in a game)" were elminated, you would see exciting game play far more often! Interactions make this game great!

  10. #480
    It has nothing to do with bad RNG enabling good RNG. That's not what either of them are saying.

    I backed the game for this resource system. I like this resource system. If you cannot wrap your head around multiple levels of variance increasing the enjoyment of the game, even if it means edge cases then maybe you should go find another game to play. This isn't changing.
    ----
    http://i.imgur.com/I1MZpF8.png
    HexEnt is too long to type, They're HXE now.
    I am currently trading my unused GK code for a new Tesla Model S P85D
    Feel free to contact me for where you can have it shipped.

Posting Permissions

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