Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 37

Thread: Revisiting Design Philosophy - Triggered abilities and the chain

  1. #21
    Is this where I get to do my Gwaer impression and say "You want a different game than Hex"? :-)

    I'm actually happy with the streamlining (some say "dumbing down") of the game. Given the digital nature of Hex, the shortcuts we do in real life with TCGs can't happen in the client. In alpha there was too much clicking for each and every effect. And, with shortcuts, there would still be an incentive for some to not fast forward so they can "play the clock" instead of playing the game.

    The way it is now is better for new and casual players (which Hex will absolutely need to be viable long-term). Advanced and expert players will adjust to whatever the rules are and modify their play appropriately.

    Just my opinion.

  2. #22
    The problem with that line of thinking is that, as we have said numerous times, you can have both. Make the options to speed the game up, set them to be active by default, but allow those who want access to the complex interactions to use them. The problem with the old system is the options were hidden from the player, not that they existed at all. Make them obvious, make them part of the tutorial, but keep them in the game. That way, nobody loses.

    "Love all, trust a few, do wrong to none."
    - Shakespeare, All's Well That Ends Well

  3. #23
    Having both creates a situation where intermediate players, and casual players who understand the complex rules, have to choose between having a streamlined game or having the ability to do all of the actions they deserve to do. I am happiest having a streamlined game and knowing that nobody else is getting opportunities to do things I am not.

    I don't want triggered abilities on the stack, but I also don't want to be discarding without being able to respond to it. As far as I am concerned, the best solution is to not create cards that enable this to happen. Bloatcap IS an issue, but I think that this is a problem with Bloatcap, not a problem with all triggered abilities.
    Last edited by loopholist3; 08-25-2015 at 09:28 AM.

  4. #24
    Actually docx, I want hex. The original vision of hex was a deep complete tcg the likes of which the digital world had rarely seen. Every small cut of that potential depth is bad. Since the digital nature is supposed to create more opportunities rather than remove them.

    When I've leveled that at you in the past it is because you do want a completely different game. In many ways I miss the alpha client, and would be more happy with it and all of the bug fixes and polish that has been added since and none of the streamlining. Aside from passing priority buttons. You want an overhaul of various systems. I want the original kickstarter vision with its maximum polish and swank.
    Last edited by Gwaer; 08-25-2015 at 02:30 PM.
    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.

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Gwaer View Post
    [well thought out stuff deleted for brevity]
    I have thoughts on this, but I've found the forums not the best medium for communicating on this higher level of philosophy :-)

    Suffice to say I (believe I) understand your positions and, while I disagree with some of them, I respect you and your point of view. And I'll bow out of this particular conversation.

  6. #26
    I don't believe a reduction in the number of actions you can take results in the game having less depth. To use physical games as a comparison, I would say that Yomi has more depth than Sushi Go. In Sushi Go your choosing recipes, ingredients, ingredients locations, and special abilities, where as in Yomi your playing a game that is only slightly more complicated than rock, paper, scissors, but the amount of consideration needed for each action in Yomi is much greater. Back to hex, I would say changing the current rules so that all effects are added to the stack actually creates less depth because it creates less things for you to consider when comparing different cards during deck creation (because all cards act the same way).

    The digital nature of this game is supposed to create more opportunities when designing and balancing cards, not create more opportunities to play them. You can create complicated tokens without fear of it getting confusing. Your opponent can do things to your deck and hand without fear of having your cards damaged or stolen. We can have cards that affect cards that your opponent can't see because your opponent doesn't need to make sure your not cheating. If the goal was to have more opportunities to play cards, then they could have just added more phases.

    I can understand why somebody might prefer the alpha client. While I prefer the changes that have been made, I don't think they have no downsides. But its not like these changes are against the design philosophy laid out in the kickstarter.
    Last edited by loopholist3; 08-27-2015 at 07:18 AM.

  7. #27
    Devoted Emissary
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Quote Originally Posted by loopholist3 View Post
    I don't agree that non-targeted triggered abilities need to be added to the stack. I do agree that the Bloatcap example is a problem.

    Are there any problem cards if the rules were changed so that triggered effects that include the word each were added to the stack?

    Alternatively, could it be made so that when a card is sacrificed as part of a cost, it is voided instead, then once the card who sacrificed it effect is resolved, the sacrificed card is sent to the discard and it now triggers any on death effects?
    I'd just like to say that changing a couple of cards to avoid these corner cases would solve the problem quite well, for the most part, like making Bloatcap target a player (the other solution, about voiding then hitting the graveyard wouldn't trigger 'death' effects, and if they made a rule exception for it then they open themselves up to a whole new host of unusual interactions for the future). However, as I did state in my original post, part of my concern about this rule exception is what it means for future design.

    Right now, 'target opposing champion' and 'each opposing champion' are functionally identical - though they will not be far in the future when 3+ player games are possible - but I am nevertheless concerned at the idea that changing a single word, even in a two player game, can drastically impact the functionality of the card - after all, if it's an ability, you're giving it the Split Second rule (which normally applies only to spells, to be fair), one of the most powerful effects in Magic the Gathering. Oversights may occur on cards in the future (even if they haven't already - was Bloatcap an oversight? Was it's effective design finalized pre-rules change, remembering that cards can stay in design for years at a time?) with this in place. And, as I've said, I consider this rules exception simply a means of adding rules complexity for newer players, without actually providing any more strategic depth.

    Adding complexity, risking more rules oversights, and shifting the power level of cards with 'each' in their 'targeting' text, for the sake solely of slightly faster games (which, as has been pointed out by ossuary, can be achieved with an option, or a 'hold priority' button, or anything) seems a poor trade-off to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by DocX View Post
    I have thoughts on this, but I've found the forums not the best medium for communicating on this higher level of philosophy :-)
    Not entirely on-topic, but I'd just like to agree. There's a lot of discussions, debates and exchanges of information which is particularly difficult to have in a public online environment. Won't stop me from trying.
    TL;DR: Man criticizes things. Rambling ensues.

  8. #28
    Devoted Emissary
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Quote Originally Posted by loopholist3 View Post
    I don't believe a reduction in the number of actions you can take results in the game having less depth.
    I'm not saying it decreases depth (though, in some ways, I feel it does for corner-cases, since they take away a couple of 'choice' elements in certain card interactions), but these rule exceptions certainly don't 'increase' depth.

    But in this case, the reduction in number of actions allowable to a player under certain circumstances is doing one thing: it is increasing rules and design complexity.
    TL;DR: Man criticizes things. Rambling ensues.

  9. #29
    I have submitted bug requests and received compensation for things like not being able to respond to Incubation Webs at the start of turn.

    Its ridiculous that you can't respond to some triggered but not others. Need consistency.

  10. #30
    Master Theorycrafter
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Auckland, New Zealand
    I am on the fence on this one but in general I kind of like that the current design allows somethings to be more/less powerful based on whether they are targeted or non-targeted as far as design space I think this gives a broader impact though there is a small hit on play skill but the current implementation also has impacts relevant to playskill.

    I will note however that you cannot lock someone out of instants with bloatcap currently since the drawing player gets priority first so can cast the instant before bloatcap can be triggered. It does put the onus on the player to see that line however if they expect the sacrifice. The bloatcap player is still favoured as they cannot get blown out if they are able to activate the sacrifice but this can be seen as a different consideration rather than just - I will hold this instant and nullify the discard.
    Hi, my name is Malicus and my will to resist Hex is weak.

Posting Permissions

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