Cryptozoic have produced a number of high quality products in board games and TCG market. I don't really want to copy paste some of the information here, because honestly their kickstarter page has almost all the current information.
It's going very well though. They've released a couple of gameplay videos as well so you can get a feel (it's a LOT like Magic). I'm really looking forward to it though, anyone else?
Never been a fan of Magic Online ...tought it was lacking compared to the real game. But this game has potential. I checked it out and the people working on it seem to have decent experience (some of them worked on WoW at Blizzard) Anyhow, i pledged a bit and we'll see how it goes. Hopefully, they'll add more gameplay videos
Cryptozoic is actually the company that currently runs all of the WoWTCG related things, after UDE went under.. I've met most of them, and they're all pretty cool. Not sure abut this though.
Edit: It seems like they're actually recycling the art from some older cards.
Wow, I don't think they could copy any more of MTG if they tried, lol. Seems fun though, I always thought that MTG Planeswalker titles would be awesome as mmo's. I hope they make it.
Instant red flag for me as a competitive player is the "equipment" that you can attach to and upgrade the cards, and is the reason I'm not putting $ in to the kickstarter. As a casual game this looks really good and I'll probably try it out when its released.
On May 24 2013 06:33 scintilliaSD wrote: They're in charge of the WoW TCG, which, despite it's lack of popularity, is in my opinion one of the better TCGs out there.
And saying card games "rip off MtG" is like saying fantasy games "rip off DnD" these days.
No, in this case it's actually true. They have taken the MtG rules and replaced some key words. The only change I've noticed is that Enchantments aren't permanents anymore.
On May 24 2013 06:00 BlueBird. wrote: Instant red flag for me as a competitive player is the "equipment" that you can attach to and upgrade the cards, and is the reason I'm not putting $ in to the kickstarter. As a casual game this looks really good and I'll probably try it out when its released.
It would benefit you to read more. The "equipment" and "socketing" etc are for PvE purposes only. The actual competitive side of the game where you play against other players doesn't have any of that. The stuff like that is to add flavour and fun to the "PVE" parts of the game. If you're looking to play competitively, none of those are relevant in multiplayer, it's just the "base" card of each card.
Pledged for a Pro Player incentive. I want to try out a TCG, and getting in on the ground floor of a brand-new game is a more interesting use of my money than trying to get up to speed in Magic or another existing TCG. Even if I absolutely hate the game (not likely given what's out there so far, but you never know I guess), I can probably break even or take a slight loss with the rewards from Pro Player. A free draft per week for life pays for it in less than a year.
On May 24 2013 06:00 BlueBird. wrote: Instant red flag for me as a competitive player is the "equipment" that you can attach to and upgrade the cards, and is the reason I'm not putting $ in to the kickstarter. As a casual game this looks really good and I'll probably try it out when its released.
It would benefit you to read more. The "equipment" and "socketing" etc are for PvE purposes only. The actual competitive side of the game where you play against other players doesn't have any of that. The stuff like that is to add flavour and fun to the "PVE" parts of the game. If you're looking to play competitively, none of those are relevant in multiplayer, it's just the "base" card of each card.
I read the whole thing just misunderstood that part, feel the same way though, it's about where the resources are going. I'm not saying it's going to be a bad game, but I have a ton of digital and physical ccg/lcg/dcg games to choose from so you have to really grab me to get my $.
PvE Raids remind me of Sword girls online (not that it's a bad thing :3). Actual gameplay is strongly reminiscent of MTG but I got bored of MTG games like Duels pretty quickly so maybe this will be different.
On May 24 2013 06:00 BlueBird. wrote: Instant red flag for me as a competitive player is the "equipment" that you can attach to and upgrade the cards, and is the reason I'm not putting $ in to the kickstarter. As a casual game this looks really good and I'll probably try it out when its released.
It would benefit you to read more. The "equipment" and "socketing" etc are for PvE purposes only. The actual competitive side of the game where you play against other players doesn't have any of that. The stuff like that is to add flavour and fun to the "PVE" parts of the game. If you're looking to play competitively, none of those are relevant in multiplayer, it's just the "base" card of each card.
I read the whole thing just misunderstood that part, feel the same way though, it's about where the resources are going. I'm not saying it's going to be a bad game, but I have a ton of digital and physical ccg/lcg/dcg games to choose from so you have to really grab me to get my $.
That's fair enough. It's probably something definitely worth trying for free I think. I tend to try everything a little bit even if I don't think I'll like it. But since I moved away from any nearby card gaming group I'm stuck with online. Hopefully see you around release and hope it grabs you!
They have talked about potential future cash tournaments if it takes off and whatnot, so I'm optimistic (naively so? ) that they're looking to garner a genuine competitive scene.
Magic fans are probably going to stick with Magic and Hearthstone has BlizzActivision's marketing power behind it. This and Hearthstone are both F2P at least, which is one advantage they got, and both look very polished.
My big worry is using land-type resource systems. Seems archaic and eurgh to me, it's no fun in Magic losing a game because you cannot draw a land and it'll not be fun here.
+ It's Free-to-Play + Well, at least you can't complain too hard about the mechanics. MtG has been around ages and still loved. + Overfunded dev team somewhat guarantees long-term support. - Competition is stiff - I'd still be afraid of a lawsuit if I were them. When the guy said "And the card is turned sideways, we call this exhausted" all I could think is him reciting a mantra of "Don't say tapped! Don't say tapped!" because fuck me its literally MtG with a coat of paint. - Land-based mana, especially after them developing systems that don't even use it, seems a step back - Indie is Indie, they're going up against two big companies - WotC and Blizzard.
On May 31 2013 13:32 kaykaykay wrote: Just wondering, how much did you guys pledge? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the most value for money seems to be the... Pro player tier?
*free draft/week fer lyfeeeeeeee.*
Well Grand King is the best overall value I think, but both that and Pro Player have been sold out for a while. I'm in at collector, the same monetary entrance as Pro Player, but we only get the free draft a week for 1 year instead of for life. If you go Guild Master, you get an extra 90 set 1 boosters to start with, but I think in the long term, the exclusive alt art cards (especially as there aren't that many Collector Tiers yet) will provide a lot of value if I choose to sell/trade them.
There's people camping/scripting for the Pro Player and Grand King Tiers though, so even when one opens up it's almost impossible to grab it. If you're not sure how long the game will last, probably Guild Master for the extra $180 worth of boosters is best (Since you get about $490 worth of boosters before any of the other rewards).
Of course developers have to make money but if is the good old "you can only get these cards if you pay" or "you can get everything for free if you play 16 hours a day for 25 years or pay" then it's just another worthless PTW game.
It's a rip-off of MTG indeed, but that's probably not a bad thing :D I pledged 45$ for this, and I'm happy the tablet version was unlocked. Looking forward to playing this in the train on my Nexus 7 :D
On May 31 2013 22:25 CrimsonLotus wrote: The question is, how much pay to win will it be?
Of course developers have to make money but if is the good old "you can only get these cards if you pay" or "you can get everything for free if you play 16 hours a day for 25 years or pay" then it's just another worthless PTW game.
They haven't said what ways of unlocking cards/boosters there are for people who only play without ever paying. Starting an account is free, and you get 1 free starter deck.
As far as "how much pay to win", it's really best to think of the PVP side as just a normal CCG, but online. They've said they'll be charging $2 for a 15 card booster. It's unlikely that if you play purely free you'll get anywhere in the PVP side of things, but you should still be able to work through the PVE side.
I can't provide a source on this, but I remember them saying you should be able to get every card you would need purely through boosters. Since they intend to grow this as a competitive CCG (and have plans for World Championships etc already), I seriously doubt they will have any of those "Buy this specific card from us or you suck" kind of things. Cards will be released in sets, and you acquire them by buying boosters. Most of the other stuff SHOULD be things like alt-art promos etc.
It looks like they'll be an (albeit cheaper) MTG style sales point. Buy boosters for your cards, buy or trade with other players for anything you're missing. Bare in mind MTGO sells boosters for full physical retail value, Hex will be a LOT cheaper for people who want a high quality competitive CCG in a digital space.
EDIT: And the idea that people keep using the words "Pay to Win" when talking about a CCG is pretty funny. CCGs are buy their very nature "pay to win". But not in the same way the words are used about things like MMOs. I fully expect to have to spend money on this to remain competitive though (which I intend to be).
On May 31 2013 13:32 kaykaykay wrote: Just wondering, how much did you guys pledge? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the most value for money seems to be the... Pro player tier?
*free draft/week fer lyfeeeeeeee.*
Well Grand King is the best overall value I think, but both that and Pro Player have been sold out for a while. I'm in at collector, the same monetary entrance as Pro Player, but we only get the free draft a week for 1 year instead of for life. If you go Guild Master, you get an extra 90 set 1 boosters to start with, but I think in the long term, the exclusive alt art cards (especially as there aren't that many Collector Tiers yet) will provide a lot of value if I choose to sell/trade them.
There's people camping/scripting for the Pro Player and Grand King Tiers though, so even when one opens up it's almost impossible to grab it. If you're not sure how long the game will last, probably Guild Master for the extra $180 worth of boosters is best (Since you get about $490 worth of boosters before any of the other rewards).
Then we can make plans for a TL guild haha. How important is the draft for life anyway? It seems like the best one to go for if you wanna remain competitive, with them releasing new sets every 4 months.
Important? Depends if you like drafting or not. Real competition will probably focus around constructed, not sealed. But it DOES mean 3 free boosters a week, or about $28 a month. Everyone else at 250 gets it for 1 year, so it depends how much longer past the first year it lasts
Well limited is a very competitive format in magic and that appears to be the system they are going for roughly, I'd imagine both constructed and limited will be important if you want to be a complete player
Updated the OP with the interview Cory did with Angry Joe. He covers the questions of "pay to win", what you can earn through playing without spending anything, a bit more about PVE, and some more good points (it's 45 minutes). Worth a watch if you're interested/skeptical.
It's interesting and the funding has passed the $2 million mark. It seems that the "MMO" features are kind of a stretch as a description though. It sounds like "dungeons" are just maps with "location" icons that you click on and fight ai decks single player, while "raids" are 3 player. It doesn't seem like there is an actual 3d world to explore as one would typically think of when you hear MMO these days. Could still be alot of fun, but of course it is also risky investing in a game when you don't know what the balance or long term life of it will be. At least with $2 million in funding there should be a decent player base. It's just that with CCG's if you intend to play competitive you pretty much have to go all in, or don't bother, so it's an expensive investment.
On May 31 2013 22:25 CrimsonLotus wrote: The question is, how much pay to win will it be?
Of course developers have to make money but if is the good old "you can only get these cards if you pay" or "you can get everything for free if you play 16 hours a day for 25 years or pay" then it's just another worthless PTW game.
From their website it appears that the single-player portion of the game will unlock from a base set of 300 cards, and "Set 1" will have 350 cards that can only be unlocked via tournament play, buying boosters, or auction house. How the business model will evolve as new sets are added to the game remains to be seen.
Pardon me, but why the fuck would I play this game? It is MtG with a new mechanic to restrain power cards to land drops and not just available mana (threshold), and really weak planeswalker abilities on your avatar. These don't really change the formula. That leaves playing creatures against an AI controlled board/hand of creatures and spells that theoretically doesn't follow normal game rules. 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. Wow that sounds like a blast.
This is making me vomit in my mouth. Watered down MtG sold to casuals. Thanks a lot, guys.
Yeah I have to agree, I read the comments that this was a magic ripoff before I watched the video but I was still surprised about how little new ideas they brought to the table. I mean they don't even bother to try and fix any of Mtg's design flaws, something that virtually every other CCG made recently has done.
And why the hell would I want to play Magic against a computer? The whole fun about these games is you have your deck and you are playing someone else who also has their own deck. So instead people are going to go into dungeons and fight prebuild AI decks and solve puzzles? How is that fun?
Somebody should tell Fantasy Flight to get their LCGs online as apparently its free money and every one they have published is 100x better than this.
Well for the very first set it's not exactly plausible to stray TOO far from established CCG mechanics. There IS clearly a huge magic influence in the game, but that doesn't mean in future sets they're not going to move further away from the MTG mechanics and into more unique things. You don't want to scare off core CCG players with weird mechanics really early.
This is making me vomit in my mouth. Watered down MtG sold to casuals.
That's a fucking stupid statement though. If it's the SAME as MTG, the only thing "watered down" is the fact that it doesn't have 20 odd years of development having happened and therefore has a lot less cards initially.
And why the hell would I want to play Magic against a computer? The whole fun about these games is you have your deck and you are playing someone else who also has their own deck. So instead people are going to go into dungeons and fight prebuild AI decks and solve puzzles? How is that fun?
I dunno, I have no intention of doing more than use the PVE as a side distraction. It's a CCG, and they're pushing the tournament side of it, I plan on playing vs other players, not playing against an AI. That doesn't mean it can't be fun though. WoW raid decks were a lot of fun and extremely successful/popular.
And apparently their idea of a good game is shitty power level weenie deck vs shitty power level red deck.
I mean, you're clearly only here to troll the thread. There are other games showcased that are much more interesting. Of course 2 aggro decks in an early pre-alpha build are not going to be a particularly interesting game. The most recent stream showcased some slightly more complex decks.
All your vitriol aside, which really has no place here anyway, even if it IS just Magic reskinned, it's still worth playing if it's something you find interesting. Because not everyone can play cards IRL. And the MTGO platform is fucking atrocious. The fact that the game is digital only also opens up some more interesting/fun interactions that you can't do in real games, such as Booby Trap: http://hex.potion-of-wit.com/card.php?c=81 -> http://hex.potion-of-wit.com/card.php?c=99 When looking at cards, also remember this is SET 1. This is a base set. Think about Magic's core sets. They don't have piss all exciting in them either. I know this post won't change the view of the two posters above me since they're clearly already decided having read about one paragraph and watched like 10 minutes of footage, making them complete experts. I hope it helps the rest of you who may be put off by those posts though.
And as a side note, if FFG brought any of their LCGs online I would buy the shit out of that.
Apologies, I don't mean personal offense and I'm sure some people will have fun playing this. But I stand by what I said. 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. 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. Including "everyone can use them" mix-and-match features like gems will narrow the options for balance/power level in card design. I'm sure they'll get a lot of mileage out of format design and other mechanics you can't do on paper. I doubt it will help lead them out of the confined space called "how many ways can you avoid being exactly like magic". It's not even that I dislike that they're copying. 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.
Why do you think it's aimed solely at "casuals"? I've been playing a couple various CCGs competitively and successfully for years, and myself and others in similar situations are looking to pick this up. The stuff like gems aren't used at all in PVP matches/tournaments, only in the PVE aspects, where card power or balance really doesn't matter IMO. They've stated intent for cash tournaments further down the line (Soon tm I'm sure ), the client has a similar system to MTGO with constant pick up tournaments... there's a market there for serious players as well as the more casual side of the game.
I don't think offering multiple options is a bad thing, it draws more players in. The $250 tier that offers free drafts for life was on of the first tiers to sell out, so there's clear intent to play within the competitive area.
Every CCG has to start "casual", there isn't a franchise that has ever successfully had a fully fledged and involved tournament scene from the very get go. But the PVE side, with the equipment, gems, etc doesn't impact the PVP side. Everything Cryptozoic has said about that has made me excited for a digital CCG that has learned to seperate "progression" vs AI from the player vs player interactions that are the very core of a CCG. I anticipate the PVE to be a fun distraction, not much more.
On June 08 2013 12:21 TheYango wrote: Honestly, WotC really missed the boat not making MtGO use an F2P business model in the first place.
To be fair, when MtGO first came about, F2P wasn't a well established business model. At that point in time many people would have laughed at the idea. I do think they could have changed their business model and released a new platform though...
Honestly, the thing that excites me most about Hex is that it's free (mostly, given I've backed it, not exactly ) and that it has, what appears to be, a very good playing surface for the card game. The fact that it is basically a reharsh of magic isn't a bad thing to me - because it means it has potential to be great, on a platform that is convenient to me. I stopped playing magic for 2 reasons, the first was because the people I played with started to drift apart and we couldn't play as regularly and the second was cost. I was willing to take the cost to play with friends, but as it became harder, the cost of keeping up with MtG became evident. It's really expensive! So for me, Hex offers an interesting opportunity to play something I know that I like, but it's new enough that I don't have to feel like I missed out or would have trouble getting back into it (like magic after years of not playing) and it's convenient and cheap. Ticks all the boxes for me, and I can see why some people may disapprove of it BECAUSE of how similar it is to magic... Yet they fail to look at it from the other side of the coin.
Well, then there's even less to separate it from magic? It looks like right now it has three things going for it: 1) good UI and online play, 2) different way of doing color requirements, 3) design space you get from being digital. They're really competing on convenience and possibly the strength of the set design, but I suppose they'll be grabbing a lot of casual/mobile market (if they get their tablet version working). So on the one hand, they're just making "other" magic cards, fragmenting the player base, but on the other hand, they might feed people into the scene. Or wizards might transition to fully virtual, lol.
Maybe people with have their cardboard game and their ipad game and everyone will be happy.
I don't see how they can have competitive f2p indefinitely.
On June 08 2013 12:21 TheYango wrote: Honestly, WotC really missed the boat not making MtGO use an F2P business model in the first place.
To be fair, when MtGO first came about, F2P wasn't a well established business model. At that point in time many people would have laughed at the idea. I do think they could have changed their business model and released a new platform though...
Honestly, the thing that excites me most about Hex is that it's free (mostly, given I've backed it, not exactly ) and that it has, what appears to be, a very good playing surface for the card game. The fact that it is basically a reharsh of magic isn't a bad thing to me - because it means it has potential to be great, on a platform that is convenient to me. I stopped playing magic for 2 reasons, the first was because the people I played with started to drift apart and we couldn't play as regularly and the second was cost. I was willing to take the cost to play with friends, but as it became harder, the cost of keeping up with MtG became evident. It's really expensive! So for me, Hex offers an interesting opportunity to play something I know that I like, but it's new enough that I don't have to feel like I missed out or would have trouble getting back into it (like magic after years of not playing) and it's convenient and cheap. Ticks all the boxes for me, and I can see why some people may disapprove of it BECAUSE of how similar it is to magic... Yet they fail to look at it from the other side of the coin.
MTGO is extremely profitable, and last time I heard It's doing extremely well. I don't have specific numbers or anything, but their business model works and a new platform/business model would be a nightmare considering the thousands of dollars individuals have tied up in MTGO cards.
Don't expect MTGO to change, and I honestly hope it doesn't, although we could see Duels of the Planeswalkers grow and expand(especially hopefully add deckbuilding some day) and then move in to compete with some of these other DCGs.
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 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 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.
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."
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.
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)
Alpha invites are supposed to start today for those who pledged $500 and up, with more users being added slowly depending on server stability and any game breaking bugs. The devs are supposed to be streaming today as well. More info at http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/cze/hex-mmo-trading-card-game/posts
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.
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.
so how is this game going? i had high hopes for this becoming a very solid iteration of a competitive online tcg, but somehow it went very quiet around it.
Alpha is chugging along, So far it's basically all about stability though and not content so the buzz has died down a little bit once the updates become more content oriented it should build up again. Still think it's got a good thing going though.
Yep, the game is working as close to flawlessly as one could expect from a Alpha/beta now, and all the cards from the first set have been added. I won't play any more until the beta starts but it's looking good.
If you have any other questions about the game feel free to ask. I don't want this post to be counted as spam. I really want people to get into the game because it's really fun.
One thing to note, Acution House would be implemented soon so you can't trade yet. Also, PvE is not implemented yet ... so the game right now it's PayToPlay basically. You will only get a Starter deck and if you want other cards you need to put some money in.
When you get in I recommend you to get the "Orcs Starter Deck". I also have 2 extra beta keys and some Draft Starter Packs. I will give those during a live stream or something.
Hey so i am playing closed beta for this game and I gotta say, I think it shows a ton of promise. Really it is exactly what I have been looking for and more.
What have I been looking for? Online MTG with better software. This game basically is MTG, but I am sure they are going to use their advantage of starting fresh to make improvements on the flaws of MTG.
Hearthstone was too simple for me, but this fixes that.
It is closed beta so there is still a lot of work to be done but I have a feeling that this game is going to be very successful so I think I will keep investing time into it to grind out cards. Not gonna put any money in for a while though.
I got a beta key a couple of weeks ago. I tried the game, it seems to be pretty good so far, but if I understood correctly there is no way to grind out cards for the moment. You have to pay to get more cards that the ones you get with the tutorial.
Well, I guess it won't stay this way for long, so I'll keep an eye on it !
Looks pretty cool, but last I heard of them they were getting sued by Wizards of the Coast for ripping off Magic: The Gathering. Anyone know how it's going with that?
On September 11 2014 06:14 Propelled wrote: Looks pretty cool, but last I heard of them they were getting sued by Wizards of the Coast for ripping off Magic: The Gathering. Anyone know how it's going with that?
On September 11 2014 05:55 Trangosu wrote: I got a beta key a couple of weeks ago. I tried the game, it seems to be pretty good so far, but if I understood correctly there is no way to grind out cards for the moment. You have to pay to get more cards that the ones you get with the tutorial.
Well, I guess it won't stay this way for long, so I'll keep an eye on it !
You get 100 gold per random match win. I started playing today, I have played a couple hours, I have made 900 gold. That's enough to get a handful of commons or maybe an uncommon. So the going is very slow, but it is possible.
However, when you do the starter trials you get extra cards for beating them. And if you put together the cards from the other starter decks and do the start trials with those you will get even more cards.
So if you don't want to spend money the going is slow, but it is possible. I am having fun with my initial cards right now anyways though.
On September 11 2014 07:02 travis wrote: You get 100 gold per random match win. I started playing today, I have played a couple hours, I have made 900 gold. That's enough to get a handful of commons or maybe an uncommon. So the going is very slow, but it is possible.
However, when you do the starter trials you get extra cards for beating them. And if you put together the cards from the other starter decks and do the start trials with those you will get even more cards.
So if you don't want to spend money the going is slow, but it is possible. I am having fun with my initial cards right now anyways though.
Oh, cool. Thanks for the info. I guess I must have missed that the first time I played.
On September 11 2014 06:14 Propelled wrote: Looks pretty cool, but last I heard of them they were getting sued by Wizards of the Coast for ripping off Magic: The Gathering. Anyone know how it's going with that?
Thanks for the link, sounds like the Hex developers are favored to win. While I'm still undecided on whether to play this game or not, I'll be hoping the increased competition results in cheaper Magic in the future
I am downloading the client now, just checked my emails and saw that I had a beta key waiting for me :D. Unfortunately I leave in the morning for a family vacation over the weekend so that will stop me from going no-life mode like I tend to do when I start new games, but I will use tonight to learn it and run through the trial etc and try and get a sense of how difficult it will be to play the game at a decent level without putting money in. I have some money I could spend on it but I want to see if playing entirely for free is a viable option first because generally I don't mind grinding in games as long as it is fun.
Well, it is basically impossible to progress without spending money. Huge turn off for me.
may have spoken somewhat too soon, i have several bids out with the small amount of gold I have won. But it has been extremely hard for me to win with the starting deck + the few cards I got from the trials. I started as humans and while some of the individual cards seem strong (tons of +dmg/defense and cards that give your troops abilities) but atm it is hard to combo them well. The most obvious thing to me to aim for atm with this deck is to get 2 more of the paladins that gain stats every time your champion gains health and combo that with flying troops + lifedrain (through champion/sockets/abilities) and the 1 cost troop that gives u health every time you summon a troop of equal or greater cost. I also saw some relatively cheap 'white pawn' artifacts that give you +1 health so they would probably work well with this idea as well. Unfortunatly at the moment I only have 2 of the paladins (will try to get 2 more as soon as I can) and they only way I have to stop disables is a single repel and a single counter spell.
On September 11 2014 04:48 travis wrote: Hey so i am playing closed beta for this game and I gotta say, I think it shows a ton of promise. Really it is exactly what I have been looking for and more.
What have I been looking for? Online MTG with better software. This game basically is MTG, but I am sure they are going to use their advantage of starting fresh to make improvements on the flaws of MTG.
Hearthstone was too simple for me, but this fixes that.
It is closed beta so there is still a lot of work to be done but I have a feeling that this game is going to be very successful so I think I will keep investing time into it to grind out cards. Not gonna put any money in for a while though.
Sounds fairly similar to what I've been searching for, Magic(mostly EDH) has become a bit too much of a chore with friends as it seems everyone constantly has 10+ new cards or interactions that make no real sense and result in us arguing over it for hours instead of playing and Hearthstone while it plays nice just falls flat in the long run, only other game I found that was fun was Solforge but it had its own host of issues..
Got a key a while ago so downloading now, will give the Orc deck a go as my starter and see how it is.
On September 11 2014 04:48 travis wrote: Hey so i am playing closed beta for this game and I gotta say, I think it shows a ton of promise. Really it is exactly what I have been looking for and more.
What have I been looking for? Online MTG with better software. This game basically is MTG, but I am sure they are going to use their advantage of starting fresh to make improvements on the flaws of MTG.
Hearthstone was too simple for me, but this fixes that.
It is closed beta so there is still a lot of work to be done but I have a feeling that this game is going to be very successful so I think I will keep investing time into it to grind out cards. Not gonna put any money in for a while though.
Sounds fairly similar to what I've been searching for, Magic(mostly EDH) has become a bit too much of a chore with friends as it seems everyone constantly has 10+ new cards or interactions that make no real sense and result in us arguing over it for hours instead of playing and Hearthstone while it plays nice just falls flat in the long run, only other game I found that was fun was Solforge but it had its own host of issues..
Got a key a while ago so downloading now, will give the Orc deck a go as my starter and see how it is.
I don't know if you liked what you tried or are still playing, but if you don't want to put money in but want to have fun, there is a league on the hex forums called the "rock league", which is basically pauper (all commons with 4 uncommons, no rares, no legendaries). So you don't have to put money in to be able to play this league.
Over the last few days I spent $65 on the game, used solely for playing draft tournaments. It is a ton of fun, but as with every real tcg it is quite the expensive hobby. I wouldn't actually mind throwing more money at the game but I am going to hold off for now because I haven't personally seen much work being down towards completing the game. Some of the things that bothered me while playing and are keeping me from spending more money are that I feel the population is too low, there are still bugs and there were 0 bug fixes/updates which for a game in closed beta should be one of their top priorities in getting fixed.
And just because I feel that a lot of people sugar coat their answer to the 'can I play this game without investing money into it', let me give you the real answer: no. This is a trading card game, trading card games are notoriously expensive hobbies. If you want to play pvp at a decent level, you are going to need to spend money.
On September 21 2014 02:47 Kickstart wrote: Over the last few days I spent $65 on the game, used solely for playing draft tournaments. It is a ton of fun, but as with every real tcg it is quite the expensive hobby. I wouldn't actually mind throwing more money at the game but I am going to hold off for now because I haven't personally seen much work being down towards completing the game. Some of the things that bothered me while playing and are keeping me from spending more money are that I feel the population is too low, there are still bugs and there were 0 bug fixes/updates which for a game in closed beta should be one of their top priorities in getting fixed.
And just because I feel that a lot of people sugar coat their answer to the 'can I play this game without investing money into it', let me give you the real answer: no. This is a trading card game, trading card games are notoriously expensive hobbies. If you want to play pvp at a decent level, you are going to need to spend money.
Yeah, essentially what has happened is that all their work for a long time now has been going to smoothing out their game engine, and while they may be getitng nearer to that, it has meant a lack of content addition or bug fixes for a very long time. And it probably won't be all that soon before the engine is ready.
It is frustrating though, when the game already feels playable. You have the same complaint as a lot of people.
On September 11 2014 04:48 travis wrote: Hey so i am playing closed beta for this game and I gotta say, I think it shows a ton of promise. Really it is exactly what I have been looking for and more.
What have I been looking for? Online MTG with better software. This game basically is MTG, but I am sure they are going to use their advantage of starting fresh to make improvements on the flaws of MTG.
Hearthstone was too simple for me, but this fixes that.
It is closed beta so there is still a lot of work to be done but I have a feeling that this game is going to be very successful so I think I will keep investing time into it to grind out cards. Not gonna put any money in for a while though.
Sounds fairly similar to what I've been searching for, Magic(mostly EDH) has become a bit too much of a chore with friends as it seems everyone constantly has 10+ new cards or interactions that make no real sense and result in us arguing over it for hours instead of playing and Hearthstone while it plays nice just falls flat in the long run, only other game I found that was fun was Solforge but it had its own host of issues..
Got a key a while ago so downloading now, will give the Orc deck a go as my starter and see how it is.
I don't know if you liked what you tried or are still playing, but if you don't want to put money in but want to have fun, there is a league on the hex forums called the "rock league", which is basically pauper (all commons with 4 uncommons, no rares, no legendaries). So you don't have to put money in to be able to play this league.
I definitely like the game I just hope the actually stick with it and keep the development up.
I think I might check the Rock League out though, trying to play some random matches with my starter deck is a bit like bringing a butter knife to a sword fight and I don't really want to sink much into it until my mates get a key, is there any particularly crazy decks in it like Pauper from magic or is everything fairly even?
On September 11 2014 04:48 travis wrote: Hey so i am playing closed beta for this game and I gotta say, I think it shows a ton of promise. Really it is exactly what I have been looking for and more.
What have I been looking for? Online MTG with better software. This game basically is MTG, but I am sure they are going to use their advantage of starting fresh to make improvements on the flaws of MTG.
Hearthstone was too simple for me, but this fixes that.
It is closed beta so there is still a lot of work to be done but I have a feeling that this game is going to be very successful so I think I will keep investing time into it to grind out cards. Not gonna put any money in for a while though.
Sounds fairly similar to what I've been searching for, Magic(mostly EDH) has become a bit too much of a chore with friends as it seems everyone constantly has 10+ new cards or interactions that make no real sense and result in us arguing over it for hours instead of playing and Hearthstone while it plays nice just falls flat in the long run, only other game I found that was fun was Solforge but it had its own host of issues..
Got a key a while ago so downloading now, will give the Orc deck a go as my starter and see how it is.
I don't know if you liked what you tried or are still playing, but if you don't want to put money in but want to have fun, there is a league on the hex forums called the "rock league", which is basically pauper (all commons with 4 uncommons, no rares, no legendaries). So you don't have to put money in to be able to play this league.
I definitely like the game I just hope the actually stick with it and keep the development up.
I think I might check the Rock League out though, trying to play some random matches with my starter deck is a bit like bringing a butter knife to a sword fight and I don't really want to sink much into it until my mates get a key, is there any particularly crazy decks in it like Pauper from magic or is everything fairly even?
it's quite even. I have used 4 different decks and i won my match with 3 of them. i think because its only 1 set there is nothing too crazy. I think any mono deck is a viable contender (except maybe mono green), and most 2 color combos are viable.
I think white and blood both have an edge as far as commons go though, because white has great common removal (inner conflict, repel), and blood has murder and corpsefly which is probably the best common in the game.
If you start orc, you can do the trials and then be pretty close to a competitive pauper deck.
I was actually winning about 2/3 of my proving grounds matches by playing with just orc cards after completing the trials
On October 01 2014 12:08 travis wrote: I bought one for 4 dollars from a guy who sells beta keys on one of those forums where people buy game loot and stuff.
I've been ripped off before trying that, but if anyone knows of a reputable seller pm me.
EPT
) that they're looking to garner a genuine competitive scene.
But I am always up to discuss design ramifications.
