|
On June 08 2013 11:10 EatThePath wrote:
I looked up more info right after I wrote my comment and didn't find any reason to change it.
I am admittedly elitist and picky about game design. [1]
Hex appears to wholesale lift the mechanics and core design space of magic, add a few things that will provide the illusion of "more options" and attract people who feel good when they combine two game pieces, and ride the possibilities opened by virtuality away from the core design mistakes. [2]
Including "everyone can use them" mix-and-match features like gems will narrow the options for balance/power level in card design. [3]
I just think it's a premature product that does not iterate / depart enough from its model and starting point. Hence my complaint that they are selling a knockoff brand to casuals with gewgaws and f2p because they won't know any better. Maybe I'm wrong; I hope so; we'll see. [4]
Just to be clear, I have no stake in this. I found this thread by chance and am not contributing to the kickstarter either directly or indirectly. I have a basic level of knowledge about M:tG, and I've seen the scant few card-mechanics-based digital games that have come out over the years. I've always had a passing interest in the subject, but not really more than that.
[1] From your earlier comment and from this statement, it seems like your arguments against this game are from your feelings about it - i.e. they don't stem from a rational basis.
[2] What core design mistakes have been made here? Are you talking about problems with the algebra of the X/Y creature system? You complain both that the game isn't enough like M:tG (your first post) and is too much like M:tG (second post), but I'm having trouble finding the space between those where "core design mistakes" pop up.
[3] How exactly will this make balancing on a per-card basis more difficult? It's always been my perspective that part of the point of cards in a TCG is that some of them are more powerful than others. What is it about gems and equipment that will make powerful cards cross over the line and/or disallow less powerful cards from becoming more relevant? In fact, that seems to address the single worst problem M:tG has from a system perspective.
More to the point, gems and equipment seem to me more like a deck-based element rather than card-based if I'm understanding the concept right. If you make a single card with a gem/equipment combination, it's power and utility will still depend in some part on the cards you can support it with. But when you start thinking about decks, the gem/equipment concept seems like a sub-color or (to put it another way) an additional way to "theme" your decks. To illustrate what I mean, imagine a typical red deck in M:tG. Consider a very trivial gem/equipment paradigm with 3 axes: defense, offense, and utility. If you could take your red deck and add additional offense, defense, or utility to it by taking a sub-color (with maybe a few unique exceptions peppered in there), it would change the way you play the deck. Moreover, it would change the nature of your opponent's response and reaction to your deck.
One of the main reasons I've always had a passing interesting in TCGs is the mathematical systems behind them. Suffice it to say the gem/equipment system is no different than a sub-color system - and that only makes things hard to balance if there are less than 3 sub-colors (assuming someone will always take a sub-color as they will here). If there are more than 2 valid sub-colors (valid meaning not provably inferior), then the algebraic space where interactions can happen (i.e. the gamespace) gets much larger with each sub-color.
If you're argument is that they will design individual cards in the worst way possible (i.e. to design a card to be used with a specific sub-color such that it's inferior with other sub-colors), then you don't really have a basis to do that. It would take a specific kind of effort to do that which they haven't hinted at (as far as I know). Even if they did somehow pigeonhole every card into a specific sub-color, the release of new cards and new sub-colors would effectively "ruin" their work.
In summary, as far as the system goes, I think this what is being done here is an improvement over M:tG in terms of fighting off staleness and RPS without the introduction of new cards.
[4] As I said, you haven't really made a case for what is premature with their system. It seems like your objections are more focused on the non-system elements like the PVE system, the achievement system etc. which you feel are pandering to the casual (i.e. not elitist like yourself) audience. This argument would make more sense if there had been some kind of actual display that the game system itself is watered down or handicapped in some way in order to appeal to a wider audience.
|
On June 08 2013 13:21 DefMatrixUltra wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2013 11:10 EatThePath wrote:
I looked up more info right after I wrote my comment and didn't find any reason to change it.
I am admittedly elitist and picky about game design. [1]
Hex appears to wholesale lift the mechanics and core design space of magic, add a few things that will provide the illusion of "more options" and attract people who feel good when they combine two game pieces, and ride the possibilities opened by virtuality away from the core design mistakes. [2]
Including "everyone can use them" mix-and-match features like gems will narrow the options for balance/power level in card design. [3]
I just think it's a premature product that does not iterate / depart enough from its model and starting point. Hence my complaint that they are selling a knockoff brand to casuals with gewgaws and f2p because they won't know any better. Maybe I'm wrong; I hope so; we'll see. [4] Just to be clear, I have no stake in this. I found this thread by chance and am not contributing to the kickstarter either directly or indirectly. I have a basic level of knowledge about M:tG, and I've seen the scant few card-mechanics-based digital games that have come out over the years. I've always had a passing interest in the subject, but not really more than that. [1] From your earlier comment and from this statement, it seems like your arguments against this game are from your feelings about it - i.e. they don't stem from a rational basis. [2] What core design mistakes have been made here? Are you talking about problems with the algebra of the X/Y creature system? You complain both that the game isn't enough like M:tG (your first post) and is too much like M:tG (second post), but I'm having trouble finding the space between those where "core design mistakes" pop up. [3] How exactly will this make balancing on a per-card basis more difficult? It's always been my perspective that part of the point of cards in a TCG is that some of them are more powerful than others. What is it about gems and equipment that will make powerful cards cross over the line and/or disallow less powerful cards from becoming more relevant? In fact, that seems to address the single worst problem M:tG has from a system perspective. More to the point, gems and equipment seem to me more like a deck-based element rather than card-based if I'm understanding the concept right. If you make a single card with a gem/equipment combination, it's power and utility will still depend in some part on the cards you can support it with. But when you start thinking about decks, the gem/equipment concept seems like a sub-color or (to put it another way) an additional way to "theme" your decks. To illustrate what I mean, imagine a typical red deck in M:tG. Consider a very trivial gem/equipment paradigm with 3 axes: defense, offense, and utility. If you could take your red deck and add additional offense, defense, or utility to it by taking a sub-color (with maybe a few unique exceptions peppered in there), it would change the way you play the deck. Moreover, it would change the nature of your opponent's response and reaction to your deck. One of the main reasons I've always had a passing interesting in TCGs is the mathematical systems behind them. Suffice it to say the gem/equipment system is no different than a sub-color system - and that only makes things hard to balance if there are less than 3 sub-colors (assuming someone will always take a sub-color as they will here). If there are more than 2 valid sub-colors (valid meaning not provably inferior), then the algebraic space where interactions can happen (i.e. the gamespace) gets much larger with each sub-color. If you're argument is that they will design individual cards in the worst way possible (i.e. to design a card to be used with a specific sub-color such that it's inferior with other sub-colors), then you don't really have a basis to do that. It would take a specific kind of effort to do that which they haven't hinted at (as far as I know). Even if they did somehow pigeonhole every card into a specific sub-color, the release of new cards and new sub-colors would effectively "ruin" their work. In summary, as far as the system goes, I think this what is being done here is an improvement over M:tG in terms of fighting off staleness and RPS without the introduction of new cards. [4] As I said, you haven't really made a case for what is premature with their system. It seems like your objections are more focused on the non-system elements like the PVE system, the achievement system etc. which you feel are pandering to the casual (i.e. not elitist like yourself) audience. This argument would make more sense if there had been some kind of actual display that the game system itself is watered down or handicapped in some way in order to appeal to a wider audience.
I did state my feelings, and a brief explanation of why since it was complained that I was just trolling and hating. My points aren't irrational -- you don't know quite what they are. But I understand the charge. The feelings part is perhaps due mostly to the subjectivity of "fun" and "good". Let me explain a little about the gems as an example of my beef with the design choices. (Since gems aren't pvp it doesn't really matter, but if they were, I would expect them to abandon them or rewrite how they work, sort of like MtG originally had no card limit because rarity would control for that, but then changed it to 4 per deck.)
Anything with a socket can have any attribute from the pool of gems. This means for instance that if you make a creature with a socket, it can always get flying. This limits the socketed creatures you can make because they'll always be able to have flying. So an ophidian guy with a socket is almost impossible to cost properly since he can easily become an evasion ophidian guy. And so on for all the gems. It means that socket stuff will be largely underwhelming or overcosted so as not to be broken with a gem.
As to the larger idea that they haven't done enough, I mean that they're just making an alternate set of magic cards and leveraging the design space opened by virtualizing in order to stand out. They have a much smaller design/development department, so why would I expect anything better than what magic already is. Which is why I am underwhelmed by the idea of "look at this new thing!"
Imagine if someone said "hey we're going to make magic cards except they are a different IP and can't be used with magic cards" you'd be skeptical, right?
|
On June 09 2013 01:28 EatThePath wrote:
(Since gems aren't pvp it doesn't really matter...) [1]
Anything with a socket can have any attribute from the pool of gems. This means for instance that if you make a creature with a socket, it can always get flying. This limits the socketed creatures you can make because they'll always be able to have flying. [2]
As to the larger idea that they haven't done enough, I mean that they're just making an alternate set of magic cards and leveraging the design space opened by virtualizing in order to stand out. [3]
They have a much smaller design/development department, so why would I expect anything better than what magic already is. [4]
Imagine if someone said "hey we're going to make magic cards except they are a different IP and can't be used with magic cards" you'd be skeptical, right? [5]
[1] Why bring it up if it doesn't matter to you? One of my criticisms of your arguments so far has been that you seem to take a position "first" and then pluck at various things in order to support your position. If x doesn't matter to you in the scheme of things, bringing it up as support for your position just lends an impression that your position is not derived from a rationale but instead from your feelings.
[2] I'll keep this point short since it doesn't matter in the scheme of things. I understand perfectly what you're saying. The problem is that you have a premise that some gems will be preferable on all (or even just most) socketed creatures. If you'll allow me to say "subcolor" then this is the case where there is only 1 valid subcolor. If your premise is that there will only be 1 valid subcolor, then you will be forced to conclude that subcolors are a bad idea (since it will reduce the size of the gamespace by reducing the differences between creatures). As I said before, what's needed to counteract this kind of degeneracy is 3 or more valid subcolors.
[3] If your argument is that it's too much like M:tG, then where do the core design flaws that you mentioned previously come from?
[4] I disagree with your whole implication. M:tG isn't some black box proprietary secret set of rules. It is entirely exposed - all of its flaws and achievements are completely out in the open and visible. Most of your misgivings about this game have been directed at its relationship with M:tG. It's somehow a very negative thing to copy systems and elements from M:tG. The implied alternative is (if you'll allow some hyperbole) to have someone sit in a container closed off from society while they whip up a complete TCG system derived purely from their own personal inspiration. Isaac Newton said "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." He wasn't sitting under an apple tree when inspiration struck him - he was swimming in a pool of knowledge and ideas (from his peers and predecessors) that he leveraged to come up with his great works.
This in no way implies that Hex will necessarily be good, but it's simply not a good anchor point from which to argue that it will be bad or that there's something intrinsically wrong with it.
[5] If Hex was pulling a Zynga and quite literally copying the systems verbatim, they would still be getting money because they are offering a set of services that people want badly (and for which there is no alternative). From what little I've seen of their actual cards, they are very clearly using ideas from M:tG but just as clearly not copying verbatim. If you're someone who has played M:tG in the past, I think you'd be forced to agree with me that the devil is in the details - i.e. the way a deck plays out hinges on the small particulars of the cards that make it up. If Hex literally copied verbatim the system and then made tiny changes to the individual cards, it would sufficiently differentiate Hex decks from M:tG decks in terms of how they actually play out to the point where it would be comparable only on the surface. Given that Hex is not verbatim copying cards, I think it's safe to say that the way things will play out will be quite different from M:tG.
|
On June 09 2013 02:40 DefMatrixUltra wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2013 01:28 EatThePath wrote:
(Since gems aren't pvp it doesn't really matter...) [1]
Anything with a socket can have any attribute from the pool of gems. This means for instance that if you make a creature with a socket, it can always get flying. This limits the socketed creatures you can make because they'll always be able to have flying. [2]
As to the larger idea that they haven't done enough, I mean that they're just making an alternate set of magic cards and leveraging the design space opened by virtualizing in order to stand out. [3]
They have a much smaller design/development department, so why would I expect anything better than what magic already is. [4]
Imagine if someone said "hey we're going to make magic cards except they are a different IP and can't be used with magic cards" you'd be skeptical, right? [5] [1] Why bring it up if it doesn't matter to you? One of my criticisms of your arguments so far has been that you seem to take a position "first" and then pluck at various things in order to support your position. If x doesn't matter to you in the scheme of things, bringing it up as support for your position just lends an impression that your position is not derived from a rationale but instead from your feelings. [2] I'll keep this point short since it doesn't matter in the scheme of things. I understand perfectly what you're saying. The problem is that you have a premise that some gems will be preferable on all (or even just most) socketed creatures. If you'll allow me to say "subcolor" then this is the case where there is only 1 valid subcolor. If your premise is that there will only be 1 valid subcolor, then you will be forced to conclude that subcolors are a bad idea (since it will reduce the size of the gamespace by reducing the differences between creatures). As I said before, what's needed to counteract this kind of degeneracy is 3 or more valid subcolors. [3] If your argument is that it's too much like M:tG, then where do the core design flaws that you mentioned previously come from? [4] I disagree with your whole implication. M:tG isn't some black box proprietary secret set of rules. It is entirely exposed - all of its flaws and achievements are completely out in the open and visible. Most of your misgivings about this game have been directed at its relationship with M:tG. It's somehow a very negative thing to copy systems and elements from M:tG. The implied alternative is (if you'll allow some hyperbole) to have someone sit in a container closed off from society while they whip up a complete TCG system derived purely from their own personal inspiration. Isaac Newton said "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." He wasn't sitting under an apple tree when inspiration struck him - he was swimming in a pool of knowledge and ideas (from his peers and predecessors) that he leveraged to come up with his great works. This in no way implies that Hex will necessarily be good, but it's simply not a good anchor point from which to argue that it will be bad or that there's something intrinsically wrong with it. [5] If Hex was pulling a Zynga and quite literally copying the systems verbatim, they would still be getting money because they are offering a set of services that people want badly (and for which there is no alternative). From what little I've seen of their actual cards, they are very clearly using ideas from M:tG but just as clearly not copying verbatim. If you're someone who has played M:tG in the past, I think you'd be forced to agree with me that the devil is in the details - i.e. the way a deck plays out hinges on the small particulars of the cards that make it up. If Hex literally copied verbatim the system and then made tiny changes to the individual cards, it would sufficiently differentiate Hex decks from M:tG decks in terms of how they actually play out to the point where it would be comparable only on the surface. Given that Hex is not verbatim copying cards, I think it's safe to say that the way things will play out will be quite different from M:tG.
[1][2] The point was to illustrate a problem with a design choice. I'm not sure your subcolor parsing is the same thing I was talking about. My point is that any socket cards essentially have (choose one) any of the gems as rules text. Necessarily, this limits your ability to make powerful effects at a playable cost because of overpowered interactions. I'm just pointing out that the design space for socket cards is really curtailed unless power level is not a concern. Your angle about superior subcolors is also a valid point but has more to do with gem design, so if the work is done properly that can be avoided. Let me give you another example of what I'm talking about. If there is a gem that grants rage 1 (permanent cumulative +1/+0 on attack, I think it is), how much is that worth in a vacuum? It seems like a decent nearly-vanilla kind of ability, so +1 mana cost, i.e. a grizzly bears + rage costs 3 instead of 2. That seems reasonable, maybe a little ahead of the curve on power/cost. Now comes my point: let's say I want to make a socket guy that has doublestrike. Referring to my earlier example, flight will be nice for a doublestriker, but not really "broken". It just creates an evasion guy with good effective damage output. So it's not that the flight gem is overpowered. The problem with making a doublestrike guy is the rage gem. Clearly rage is really good with doublestrike. But now to create our socket guy... an obvious place to start is a familiar size/price, a 1/1 for 2 mana. With a socket, he should probably cost 3. For example, a 1/1 doublestrike flying definitely shouldn't cost 2, but would be more or less reasonable at 3. However, a 1/1 rage doublestrike is probably too strong for 3 mana, since he quickly takes over the game. So does our guy need to cost 4? Excepting the rage gem, I would never play a 1/1 for 4 mana, and probably not with rage. Using a dubious comparison across games, 4 mana is wrath of god mana, aka "this spell needs to win you the game" mana. So to price a socket guy because of a broken gem makes it unplayable, or at best just makes it only playable with a certain gem, meaning there's no real choice involved.
And so on for every gem and all the rules text you might put on socket cards that would be broken with one of the gems.
[3][4][5] I'm saying there's no reason to go in for a game that is just a copy of another better-established game, which has made some changes that I feel are neither particularly effective or good. The big one is the extra options afforded by digital uncheatable record keeping. If they can do enough with that, it'd be worth it. My hunch is that if you base your game so heavily on that design space, it will seem gimmicky since it is modeled on a system meant to operate without that space. I'm perfectly willing to eat my words if they end up making a great game. I'm just doubtful that, by analogy, someone could add a new rule to chess and make a great game that isn't derivative.
So most generally, I think it would help you to understand my view by stating that I don't like the idea that someone can make a derivative game and have such a self-congratulatory presentation (which in this case is implied even if it weren't already plain by the inherent optimism of launching an mmo). I don't mind copying, just don't act like you've created the next great thing. Incidentally, my motivation to be so "vitriolic" in came from my intention to check exactly this enthusiasm, which I personally view to be quite misplaced.
This goes for the competitive side. The mmo casual side, if done well, could be a really nice addition to the genre and something that hasn't really been accomplished before. That is something to crow about, but it's also a casual feature. Which is great, as long as its billed as such.
If my antagonism still doesn't make sense, we should probably leave it be.  But I am always up to discuss design ramifications.
|
I think that the socketed cards can avoid the costing problem, even if they were for PvP. For creatures I think the natural solution is to allow removal to be good- the 3 mana 1/1 rage doublestrike creature is only stronger than curve when it has attacked twice, and it's still exactly as vulnerable to 1 damage as it was to begin with. Creatures that become more powerful over time are only 'broken' in a context in which they can't be killed before they become strong, and this one doesn't even become more resilient as it grows. I think that card is markedly worse than, for example, Mirran Crusader. On the other hand, it's both more fun (more interactive; because your opponent can kill it with black cards) and more exciting (because sometimes you'll get to make a 4/1 or 5/1 doublestriker, which is awesome). If that's the kind of card that this system results in then it sounds like a good system to me.
Ophidian was fair at 3 mana, wouldn't you say? Then is adding one mana to be able to fly really broken? Thieving Magpie never won any tournaments. Shadowmage Infiltrator is barely even considered good these days.
I think adding one mana to a spell's cost typically makes it so much worse that adding a single keyword isn't enough for it to become overpowered. When that creates a strong synergy between the card's abilities, the person who discovers that interaction will feel good and they'll have a good card to play with, but it won't be overpowered.
Most cards that dominate in constructed are much more than a single keyword ahead of the curve. Think of an actual card that is very strong and remove a keyword and subtract one from the mana cost. The card is now almost certainly broken beyond belief.
Thrun? Thundermaw Hellkite? Consecrated Sphinx? Thalia? Geralf's Messenger?
So sure, the kind of card that can be made with a socket is limited - it has to not already be far too strong to ever print.
|
Realize that I can't actually judge what will be broken -- the game's not out yet. It's just an example to illustrate the affect it has on socket card design. In the doublestriker example I think rage applies on attack declare, so it's already a 2/1 doublestrike by the time it's in combat. 4 power for 3 mana is at or ahead of benchmark by most standards. But anyway.
I will say compared to the cards seen in the demo games, thieving magpie seems broken. Also, in its day ophidian was format defining, although that was when counterspell costed UU.
It's kind of interesting because magic has leaned heavily into bonkers creatures the last couple years since wizards thought constructed was too focused on spells and wanted to capture the vivacity of the creature combat in limited. The stuff in the hex demo games I've seen looks like circa 8th edition creatures, which would get boring real fast in constructed. (I know they are basically precons demos, but still. Those creatures are about 50% as interesting as the commons in a typical mtg expansion.) If hex takes a similar approach to the power level of creatures, gems become even harder to design around. If your socket creatures are on par with the other creatures, they are probably too good with gems. If they aren't, then how will they see play? To return the question of broken socket cards, imagine you are the developer. You have to ask not, "is this card broken?" You have to ask that question for that card + each gem. That's a lot to keep track of. And you may also want to ask "will this card ever be played / serve a role?"
|
On June 09 2013 03:37 EatThePath wrote:
[3][4][5] I'm saying there's no reason to go in for a game that is just a copy of another better-established game, which has made some changes that I feel are neither particularly effective or good. ... I'm just doubtful that, by analogy, someone could add a new rule to chess and make a great game that isn't derivative. [1]
So most generally, I think it would help you to understand my view by stating that I don't like the idea that someone can make a derivative game and have such a self-congratulatory presentation (which in this case is implied even if it weren't already plain by the inherent optimism of launching an mmo). I don't mind copying, just don't act like you've created the next great thing. Incidentally, my motivation to be so "vitriolic" in came from my intention to check exactly this enthusiasm, which I personally view to be quite misplaced. [2]
Just to be clear, I'm responding to your posts because you're the dissenting opinion in this thread. What I'm trying to get at is why. My feeling about this game is pure ambivalence. I like the positive energy and the excitement over the game and its new polished online-only premise (something M:tG will simply never have). But I'm also very skeptical about the variety of decks, the tools they'll apply to keep the game from inheriting all of M:tG's flaws etc. If you feel so strongly about the game, you should be able to convince me to feel the same. If not, then it's worth asking yourself whether you're being reasonable.
[1] A few points here. You're saying a lot more than simply "there isn't any compelling reason to go for this." See that's my stance on it. It's a new contender in an established field that needs to make a name for itself from its own merits. Yours is different. Your stance is "people definitely shouldn't buy into this."
+ Show Spoiler [quotes] +Watered down MtG sold to casuals
And apparently their idea of a good game is shitty power level weenie deck vs shitty power level red deck. Like, really really basic creature combat and spell interaction.
I just think it's a premature product that does not iterate / depart enough from its model and starting point. Hence my complaint that they are selling a knockoff brand to casuals with gewgaws and f2p because they won't know any better.
All these statements refer to particular flaws, but I just don't see how you can draw these conclusions from the very limited information available. That's why it seems to me you're not being fair in the argument. You're conflating your preconceived negative feelings with real reasons not to approach the game.
The chess analogy is not friendly to M:tG. Everyone that's ever played it will tell you it's a game with flaws that are held back by reiteration. That's why people are searching for a new TCG in the first place. A better analogy would be an argument between the Unreal engine and the Source engine. The Unreal engine is actually a bunch of engines that have made iterative changes over time. When Source 3 comes out or even if someone makes an entirely new game engine, there is no reason whatsoever to dismiss the new engine in favor of the "established" Unreal engine (which itself isn't really established since it has gone through many iterations).
Is Hex gonna be The One TCG that people are looking for? Probably not - history says otherwise. Might it be better than M:tG? Sure, why not? M:tG has one big disadvantage in that it is invested in itself - it can't make changes to itself because it's committed in a theoretical sense but also in a business sense. If WotC came out with M:tG2 tomorrow and it was incompatible with M:tG, there's no reason to say that M:tG2 wouldn't be better in every way, but WotC would suffer badly for it in a business sense.
[2] So you're angry with the developers because they're not acting humble enough? If they feel they are making something good, that's justification enough to be excited about it. You explain your negative tone as a reaction to their overly-positive tone, but I say turn idea around and ask yourself why you feel so strongly about it rather than ambivalent.
Think of it another way. Let's say the game came out and had all its information and mechanics available to you. If you're simply being skeptical about the game, that means you could be convinced that it's better than M:tG. If not, it just means you're harboring negative sentiments about it - and in that case you don't really have much to say.
|
Yes, I could be convinced later it's better than mtg. That's contingent on a lot. From everything I've seen so far it seems inferior and it's only attraction is potential. I'm speaking from the standpoint of a serious player.
If cryptozoic wanted to appeal to me, they wouldn't avoid the words "magic the gathering" like some kind of evil incantation, and they would demonstrate more than duels of the planeswalkers 2.0 in their demo videos.
So far their offer is: cool conceptual features for casuals, and for competition: trust us, it'll be great!
That's obviously disingenuous, and the vehemence of my first post reflects that, and hopefully uncovers it for some people.
edit: I am hardly the dissenter, judging by the first page.
|
The only person on the first page declaring a red flag is BlueBird, and that was because of a misunderstanding about the application of gem/equipment. His posts put him firmly in the skeptics camp rather than the "don't touch this" camp.
|
Scrolls or Hex. Dunno what to play.
|
|
|
Looked at this and was pleasantly surprised because it has a lot of mechanics that should create interests if balance is done right.
And then I saw that ressources are land / draw based. This just totally kills any interest I have on it after playing virtual card games like duel of champions or hearthstone.
Hearthstone is not restrictive enough in my opinion and is completely dependent on Blizzard's ability to balance spells and minions and right now it's not in a good state but when seeing how Duel of Champions is doing on requisite is the best in a Virtual TCG/CCG. Not able to be mana screwed, the only RNG is about what creatures/spells/fortunes you draw and what you prioritize at first(there are a lot of ways to go to a 4/4/4 deck).
Pretty disappointing to see designers opting for solutions that can produce uninteresting RNG like being mana screwed(not hitting land, destroying your power curve or being land flooded and have nothing to play with the mana)
|
|
|
I'm one of the Grand King backers and have alpha access to the game. I haven't followed it closely so still learning it but plan to play a decent amount over the next week. I've decided to give streaming a try for those that want to watch as I play!
While I'm fairly new to modern streaming (let me know if I need to adjust settings), I have done some minor events in the past like BW Nostalgia. In terms of a gamer background, I used to play competitively in several different titles (2nd place CPL FEAR for the PC for $2500, WCG Silver Medal in 2008 for Asphalt 4 for $5000, a few top 16 SC / War3 finishes for American-only events, etc).
I do have some very limited TCG experience as well. At the first Marvel/DC VS Pro Circuit event by Upperdeck, I finished 28th for $2600. In Sword Girls Online, I finished tied for top 10 in their first tournament (http://www.swordgirlsonline.com/2012/04/24/slash-for-cash-round-1-winners/).
In essence, I usually play something for a little while until I get bored and just spend my time on other things. Again, still very new to Hex though, so I imagine there will be many laughs as I try to figure out what I am actually doing. :p I'd appreciate help and suggestions from those that have followed the game as it was being made!
My stream is http://www.twitch.tv/BluewolfTV at the moment. I've submitted it to be updated by teamliquid so will also make it live once they approve the URL change (I previously had used livestream). Thanks!
|
Played a few games against the AI, created a deck, then tried to play against a human opponent. The game messed up and wouldn't display anything right after that attempt. Restarting it caused me to be unable to login. But working again now! So streaming again (alpha bugs ><).
EDIT: Some additional notes / thoughts:
- Pure green decks look really strong at the moment. They have cards that make me scratch my head.
- That said, other decks can still possibly compete. I played two games earlier this morning and the second was my Red/Purple hybrid against a Green deck. I barely won in the end with a Rage Howler draw giving speed to itself to do some final damage against him (he was unable to block due to attacking the previous turn with his 8/8 creature). He made a few play mistakes though and I drew plenty of mana... so I'm not sure if this particular hybrid could win consistently.
- Lots of bugs. Tons of bug. Everywhere! But my two matches this morning were more stable. Hopefully they squash the turn passing priority one today.
- The gameplay... is fun. That is what is most important. I'm really looking forward to playing later tonight when out from work. Should be streaming around 6:30 PM EST at latest.
|
Bluewolf have you played Hearthstone or SolForge? I'd love to get some comparisons between the games.
|
I pledged at the $250 level and still haven't gotten an alpha invite, but Magic is going to be the strongest comparison by far from what I have seen.
|
hello, i'm starting to get interested in this game, watching streams every now and then, but its hard to keep track of things without getting to know all the cards in the pool
what decks are the most dominant in this alpha phase? and the most fun? thanks in advance
|
I just got into the alpha today, downloading the client now. Prior to today, only the kickstarter backers who pledged $500 or more had access. I believe they let all the $250 pledge backers in today, but being an alpha there are lots of bugs still, so lots of people are having problems finishing games without crashes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
