|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 7:05 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2012 4:44 pm
"Up to no good"? Knew it :U
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 7:42 pm
Did I say that I was bored?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2012 7:50 am
Yo Red, you could apply the 10 Things test to zOMG!.
If you haven't already :U
Raises interesting questions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2013 7:46 am
New member: maxitza.
HAI.
o3o
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2013 8:02 am
gataka Yo Red, you could apply the 10 Things test to zOMG!. If you haven't already :U Raises interesting questions.
Could and will, yes. The big difference being that Gaia doesn't need me to convince them they messed up with zOMG!; they've proven that to themselves already. I'd like to save them some heartache with HoC, but at this point it really doesn't look like that's going to happen. Which is really why I'm having so much trouble motivating myself to finish that thread, I think... sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2013 8:14 am
Red Kutai gataka Yo Red, you could apply the 10 Things test to zOMG!. If you haven't already :U Raises interesting questions.
Could and will, yes. The big difference being that Gaia doesn't need me to convince them they messed up with zOMG!; they've proven that to themselves already. I'd like to save them some heartache with HoC, but at this point it really doesn't look like that's going to happen. Which is really why I'm having so much trouble motivating myself to finish that thread, I think... sweatdrop
Heard about the latest development?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2013 8:19 am
gataka, hello to you as well....
Also, I'm super excited!!! 3nodding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2013 8:22 am
gataka Heard about the latest development?
As I've mentioned, I check your threads whenever I see you've posted one; there was somehting about a princess this time, yes? It's been getting hard for me to follow since I don't play much, and the game's hard to 'be part of' without actually playing. redface
Want to fill me in? sweatdrop
EDIT: Also, a hearty welcome to maxitza! Always a pleasure to see a new face around here! 3nodding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2013 8:29 am
Red Kutai gataka Heard about the latest development?
As I've mentioned, I check your threads whenever I see you've posted one; there was somehting about a princess this time, yes? It's been getting hard for me to follow since I don't play much, and the game's hard to 'be part of' without actually playing. redface
Want to fill me in? sweatdrop
lol, forgot you kept track of my nonsense :U Quote: Hi! It's not Pan, but me, a guest poster. Just a quick note on the recent booster pack changes and upcoming changes to units: Yes, the pack payouts and pricing have changed.The bad news is that the payouts are not as generous as they were during the early beta period - but to be fair, the early beta testers had to endure tons of glitches and lag issues, so they deserve to keep whatever they got. Now that we're in a more mature phase of development, it was time to take a harder look at economics. The good news? We don't expect to do another price hike like the recent one in the near future. We've looked at the data from many different angles and we think this will give HoC a really good chance to blossom into a healthy, long-living game. We listened to your feedback on the five-star heralds and we're making changes. We don't want HoC to be a pay-to-win game. The five-star heralds were giving folks too strong an advantage -- it's pretty sweet to start each game with a super powerful unit. Also, heralds are a very important part of the game and keeping most of them at the 5-star rarity level keeps them out of the hands of most players. So we're going to make a new rule: all heralds must be 3 stars in rarity and balanced for 3 stars in terms of their stats. The following units will be affected: - Keljana and Succubus will continue to be heralds but their stats and properties will change to reflect a 3 star unit. - Eldwyn, Knight of 3 Dooms, Jakyr and Zerakl will be turned into 5-star heroes and new heralds will be created to fill their spots for those factions. Each faction will have 3 heralds. What happens to you if you have these cards? You'll get a message when these changes go into effect, and in addition: - If you have Keljana or Succubus, you'll get a 5-star hero from that faction to make up for the change. - If you have any of the other heralds who have been turned into 5-star heroes, you'll get the new 3-star herald that was created for that spot. We hope this makes up for any surprises. This is a pretty big rule change, but an important one to make for the long-term viability of the game. Thoughts and suggestions are always welcome. - Reduced drops - Confirmation that rare cards are intended to be better - Recognition that too much of the above can lead to P2W Forum's aflame with people worried about not being able to be competitive because they can't get rare cards. About time I made that thread discussin rarity + power :U
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2013 9:04 am
gataka - Reduced drops - Confirmation that rare cards are intended to be better - Recognition that too much of the above can lead to P2W Forum's aflame with people worried about not being able to be competitive because they can't get rare cards. About time I made that thread discussin rarity + power :U
I can't help but scoff whenever they talk about "long-term viability". redface
How many distinct strategies does the game support? It's essentially just OtG (which I still don't think is viable to dedicate to) or 'good stuff' builds, no? If they maintained a 'rock-paper-scissors' metagame, pay-to-win wouldn't be so much an issue; even a cashed-out Aggro strategy would still have issues combating cheaper Control builds, just by the nature of the game itself. Obviously stronger Units would mean better chances overall, but the only time pay-to-win would really be a concern is in mirror-matches; and those are just as likely to come down to play skill or better draws as stronger individual Units.
Of course, that simply exascerbates forfeit issues, as the moment my Aggro decks realises it's facing Control, it wants to fold; and the Midrange decks I would prey upon will do likewise, meaning that the whole rock-paper-scissors build is pretty meaningless unto itself because the only games that won't end in early forfeit are rock-rock, etc.. Wagered three-game matches would help this a bit, but I'd also like to find ways to level the playing field a bit after game one - something like what sideboarding does in Magic, but not quite as fidgety or thought-intensive. sweatdrop
As we've talked about before, I don't think it's necessarily unreasonable for rarer cards to be strictly better, if - and perhaps only if - they are actually intended to replace cards in the same 'slots' from lower levels. Unfortunately, from what I've noticed next-to-no players in HoC actually replace cards; they just keep adding to their deck, resulting in 40, 50, or 60-card decks. Part of the problem, of course, is that the game teaches you nothing about strategic deck construction, but also because it's generally not explicit enough about high-level pieces being strictly better than the ones I have. If they want 'rarer' to be 'better', they need to accept that and actually communicate it directly through the cards themselves...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2013 10:01 am
ARgh, so much needs to be said Dx
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2013 10:03 am
lol, just noticed max posted xD
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:43 pm
Red Kutai
As we've talked about before, I don't think it's necessarily unreasonable for rarer cards to be strictly better, if - and perhaps only if - they are actually intended to replace cards in the same 'slots' from lower levels. Unfortunately, from what I've noticed next-to-no players in HoC actually replace cards; they just keep adding to their deck, resulting in 40, 50, or 60-card decks. Part of the problem, of course, is that the game teaches you nothing about strategic deck construction, but also because it's generally not explicit enough about high-level pieces being strictly better than the ones I have. If they want 'rarer' to be 'better', they need to accept that and actually communicate it directly through the cards themselves...
Yaya, However, progression games and PvP just don't mix well. The only match ups that work are those where both sides have good hopes of winning. RPG-style prog leads to either un-fun/fair match up ( becomes P2W if you can prog through cash ), or risks population issues: people with both similar skill and stats are fewer. There's the issue of contests too. Or power inflation, since there'll be a market. Progression through the cards, through rarity, is problematic too :/ Built in obsolescence...the appeal of TCGs's is in the diversity the cards bring. Rendering some useless is both seriously wasteful and self-defeating. Ya, maybe the Rune thingy addresses this, but it don't exist now, and likely shouldn't exist either. It'll just amplify more problems than it would solve. Rarity..do I even have to explain this? Pure frustration from ROI PoV, more weigh to P2W, griiiiiiiiiiiiind xD In prog games people expect they only need to put in the time to win. That ain't true for PvP. Expect to keep going too, it's a goal to them: have to raise the power level eventually, or people get bored in the eldergame. Too much and the game breaks. Really, they're flat out selling the power of rare cards. That power is meaningless if you can only use it against people who also have it. Despite what they say, they want P2W, just not too much of it it seems. Mixed signals. Tangled mess Dx They could use progression to slowly reveal the whole of the game, they're doing some of that now, that's ok. But the way they use rarity just ain't about that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2013 3:30 pm
gataka Yaya, However, progression games and PvP just don't mix well. The only match ups that work are those where both sides have good hopes of winning. RPG-style prog leads to either un-fun/fair match up ( becomes P2W if you can prog through cash ), or risks population issues: people with both similar skill and stats are fewer. There's the issue of contests too. Or power inflation, since there'll be a market.
You mean like every PvP-oriented MMO ever? razz
MMOs handle those issues a few ways: first, there's always PvE as an alternative to PvP, and PvE is built to scale to any given level; second, the format of PvE naturally funnels players of a given level to the same areas and discourages overleveled players from them; and third, it (generally) gives players control over whether or not to enter into unfair match-ups. If HoC can find ways to emulate these effects, it shouldn't be a huge problem.
Quote: Progression through the cards, through rarity, is problematic too :/ Built in obsolescence...the appeal of TCGs's is in the diversity the cards bring. Rendering some useless is both seriously wasteful and self-defeating.
Not every card can (or should) be relevant in every context - Magic isn't a worse game because my Raging Goblins aren't legal in Standard. Magic has over 10,000 unique cards, but only ~1,000 of those exist in Standard at any given time, and only a small percentage of those actually see use in Standard (because many are designed exclusively for Limited play). So long as every card has its purpose, its context, it doesn't matter if they're applicable in every context. Indeed, the ability to rotate formats - to ensure that not every card is applicable at a given time - is actually rather important. If you think of the different tiers of play as these kinds of different formats, obsoleting cards becomes rather more justifiable.
Of course, under that model there is the problem intermingling 'formats' - it's not fair (or often fun) to play a Standard deck against a Vintage deck, because the Vintage deck has access to everything the Standard deck does, plus more and more powerful cards. I'd be willing to consider making deck 'tiers' a little more explicit (if not to the players, than at least in the matchmaking system) - something along the lines of a 50-star Tier, a 100-star Tier, and a 150-star Tier, for deck construction. That way players are at least roughly contained in the same 'format', while still maintaining the mostly seamless random progression that already exists.
Quote: Really, they're flat out selling the power of rare cards. That power is meaningless if you can only use it against people who also have it. Despite what they say, they want P2W, just not too much of it it seems.
This is the big issue, yes; how do you sell power if the only way to use it is against others of similar power. Indeed, at that point you're not actually selling power - which is relative - but access to that tier as a whole. Players don't invest in Black Lotus because it makes their deck stronger; they do so because it makes their deck competitive in Vintage, and because they want to compete in Vintage.
Why, then, do players want to compete in Vintage? In Magic, Vintage has some nostalgia appeal - HoC can't really match that. But even apart from that, there is a certain satisfaction that players get from knowing they're competing at the absolute highest tier available. There's a certain thrill that some players get from the experience of doing overpowered, degenerate things, which is only amplified by the fact that their opponent can do similarly degenerate things. And there's a certain freedom in simply having access to whatever you want to use. Winning is obviously nontrivial, but for some players simply playing at that level is going to be rewarding unto itself - and what they're selling is the ability to do that.
I'm not saying this is the greatest model ever devised, and I'm definitely not saying that I'm confident that Gaia can pull it off - only that I don't think RPG-style progression is inherently at odds with PvP, especially in the context of CCG gaming. I think there are obvious - and valid - concerns, and I think you're right to fear that it won't end particularly well in this case; but I certainly don't think it's an impossible task, in the abstract...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
