Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 98

Thread: This game needs a divine offering mechanic, or a way to get guaranteed resources

  1. #31
    I'm sorry, misread
    Last edited by Deathlock; 03-10-2016 at 05:59 PM.

  2. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by Deathlock View Post
    Wow, blaming players for making suggestions? O_o Do you make the game for players or for yourselves?
    not at all what happened there. So not sure what you're commenting on.
    ----
    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.

  3. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by Chark View Post
    But even if we listened to you and removed the "extreme randomness," you'd still win about the same amount of games as you do now. And after your losses you'd still complain about how RNG keeps screwing you. Source: every Hearthstone player on the planet.
    Priceless. Who quotes this in his signature ? ^^

  4. #34
    Anyway, Chark why not to test free mulligan on draw for example? how can it hurt gameplay? I believe it would only bring more decision-making (play or draw after coinflip), more consistency. Also it would decrease disadvantage of playing as a second player a little bit. I find it as much better game design. (yes, I'm nobody in game-development, but I have decade of expirience in a lot of card games)

  5. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by Gwaer View Post
    not at all what happened there. So not sure what you're commenting on.
    My bad, Gwaer.. misread. It isn't a great idea to post on the forums while being so freaking tired as I am now %)

  6. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Deathlock View Post
    Anyway, Chark why not to test free mulligan on draw for example? how can it hurt gameplay? I believe it would only bring more decision-making (play or draw after coinflip), more consistency. Also it would decrease disadvantage of playing as a second player a little bit. I find it as much better game design. (yes, I'm nobody in game-development, but I have decade of expirience in a lot of card games)
    Because you d give a huge advantage to aggro decks and combo decks.

  7. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by Deathlock View Post
    Anyway, Chark why not to test free mulligan on draw for example? how can it hurt gameplay? I believe it would only bring more decision-making (play or draw after coinflip), more consistency. Also it would decrease disadvantage of playing as a second player a little bit. I find it as much better game design. (yes, I'm nobody in game-development, but I have decade of expirience in a lot of card games)
    Because certain decks depend on pulling 1 or 2 cards that initiate their combo and wreck you. Free mulligans allow these decks to easily recycle their hand for a more favorable one if their opening hand doesn't have the card they need. The more card advantage you give powerful decks the more likely they will destroy you without a fight.

    Look at Enter the Dream for example. In Arena, you absolutely need to draw Enter the Dream at some point. Getting it in your opening hand with 14 possible cards to look at and no disadvantage for doing so means you're almost assured to find it. And if not? -1 card, 6 card mulligan, for 20 cards viewed. Or heck, go to 5 cards for 25 cards viewed. You have four in your deck right?

    Important cards should not be in your opening hand EVERY GAME.

  8. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by Gregangel View Post
    Because you d give a huge advantage to aggro decks and combo decks.
    Fast aggro decks always want to play first, so I disagree with you. Also, with my suggestion, even if aggro player is playing first, his opponent with a control deck now has more chances to find answers. Yes, combo decks may take advantage (though not so huge) of it, it may shake the meta, but is it a bad thing..

  9. #39
    I feel like I've said this 1000 times in these threads... But I'm inspired by Chark's priceless comments...

    Less randomness = less chance to win for an average player. The best will win even more than they do now. So, most people should be lobbying to maintain randomness!
    Hex: Shards of Fate KS || Producer

    "The Magi of the Carloth highlands are renowned for their enthusiasm and generosity."
    "Speed is far more important than size when determining the power of a strike."
    "One needs no armor if both your mind and your fist are faster than your enemy's."

  10. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by Chark View Post
    ...or for that matter that the devs are "ignoring you." We aren't ignoring you: we're tired of saying that we are okay with the level of randomness that exists in the game.
    I'm a rather vocal proponent of narrowing the variance curves, for a number of reasons, but I certainly don't believe the devs ever ignore feedback (though I know you were specifically responding to a player that said that, I just want to be clear).

    Quote Originally Posted by Chark View Post
    But even if we listened to you and removed the "extreme randomness," you'd still win about the same amount of games as you do now.
    This is, to an extent, tautologically true. Reducing the variance for both players in the game is going to yield approximately the same results.

    Speaking for myself, a desire to win more isn't the reason I complain about what I feel is excess randomness. As a friend put it, I like chess, which I do. My preference is for each game, individually, to be a more rational experience. I don't like losing to mana screw -- and I don't like winning to mana screw, either -- even though, over the course of many games, a statistical pattern emerges. I'm not a fan of the feeling that I beat up my opponent, rather than beat them. The most memorable games, in my mind, are the tightest, when tactical decisions and misplays are the cause of the end of the game, rather than resource distribution causing missed curves or top decking. I desire each game individually to be more of a battle and less of a slot machine.

    But I do think it's dismissive to say that complaints would just drift somewhere else as an additional reason for not making any changes. "Developers being satisfied with the game?" that's a valid reason for a list somewhere. "There will still be complaints?" that's not one, because there will indeed always be complaints. You won't get rid of complaints, as that's a fool's errand in general; but I do think you'll have for a game that will grow wider in terms of its audience.

    ---------------------

    I would note that I am unfamiliar with any significant presence for a middle-ground variance during individual games -- it's either been all (MtG-style) or nothing (Hearthstone-style).

    A lack of developer support hinders the ability for people who defend semi-deterministic options (or other middle ground approaches that protect individualized deckbuilding curves as a gameplay element) to have data to bring to the table.

Posting Permissions

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