|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2013 5:51 pm
Red Kutai 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.
Exactly. Bringing in MMO problems :U Simple to emulate all three in PvP: it's all in the match-making, but even that has its limits. BTW, I've some concern about HoC PvE. Mainly, one of either is enough trouble alone xD Supporting both is spreading the dev resources and spreading the players, later being problematic for PvP. HoC was built for PvP and doesn't lend itself well to PvE, IMO. At least, the few WIP examples and generic CPU fights aren't convincing :/ They have different needs, at times conflicting. I understand the appeal, but I really think PvE should be downplayed until they figure out PvP. If they ever manage that xP Red Kutai 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.
I think I wasn't clear enough: I understand the value, but we can't afford that. Making units here is hard and costly, so I find such approach ill-advised. It's more efficient/elegant to use assets in as many context as possible. Anyway, this ties into match making again, it really is core to the game. Red Kutai 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...
I don't think it's impossible, fact my understanding is League of Legend got it QUITE right, just harder. Anyway, as usual, sure thing is it's unlikely Gaia is going at it in a conscious way. That's why you really should make that thread emotion_awesome
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2013 10:56 pm
gataka HoC was built for PvP and doesn't lend itself well to PvE, IMO. At least, the few WIP examples and generic CPU fights aren't convincing :/ They have different needs, at times conflicting. I understand the appeal, but I really think PvE should be downplayed until they figure out PvP. If they ever manage that xP
Yes, the core of the game is PvP, and the core of the game should always be the priority; I don't think the structure is really unconducive to PvE, but real PvE would definitely be extension on the basic gameplay. I think the game actually lends itself rather well to campaigns - similarly to something like Age of Empires - and I'd like to see the PvE emphasis put on that. But, naturally, they should start at the bottom and work their way up.
Quote: It's more efficient/elegant to use assets in as many context as possible.
That implies that it would be ideal if every asset were relevant in every context; as I said before, I think it's important - if not necessary - that they're not. Recognising the contexts to which different assets can apply and specialising them appropriately isn't really wasteful; it's just allowing each element to do its own job. Elegant as it may be, it doesn't really serve the game to achieve it. sweatdrop
If they're really so pressed for resources that they need their assets relevant in every context, then they don't really have the resources to make this sort of game properly - having everything always relevant just isn't feasible. That said, the only assets it really costs them is in terms of art (design and development come cheap, especially on strictly-betters), and while that's obviously a sizable obstacle, it's likely worth the investment to make the system actually functional... razz
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2013 9:31 am
Red Kutai
That implies that it would be ideal if every asset were relevant in every context; as I said before, I think it's important - if not necessary - that they're not. Recognising the contexts to which different assets can apply and specialising them appropriately isn't really wasteful; it's just allowing each element to do its own job. Elegant as it may be, it doesn't really serve the game to achieve it. sweatdrop
I'm not following you: ideally, my super element would be as good at two jobs as two specialised elements would be at doing one of these two jobs individually. Somewhat like: 2 = 2 VS 1 + 1 = 2 In practice, that don't hold up much, elegance is darn hard to achieve, but, theoretically, I can't see the necessity of using disparate elements when a single could lead to the same result... ? ~~~ Given it some more thoughts, and considering their stated plan of releasing around a handful of cards monthly, I'd say they could support such a model. Now question being is it a better/best model? Would it be more fun? How could they monetize that? Would easy access to the 1337 club sell? What could you sell to those in the 1337 club? Is it sustainable? Can it be communicated? And so on xD
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 5:44 pm
Post system's eating my responses again. gonk
gataka I'm not following you: ideally, my super element would be as good at two jobs as two specialised elements would be at doing one of these two jobs individually. Somewhat like: 2 = 2 VS 1 + 1 = 2 In practice, that don't hold up much, elegance is darn hard to achieve, but, theoretically, I can't see the necessity of using disparate elements when a single could lead to the same result... ?
Normally, you're right; that sort of elegance is very useful, because it allows us to reduce the total number of elements involved. CCGs, however, require a certain 'critical mass' of elements in order to support their own weight - while we could probably reduce HoC down to one- or two-dozen cards which are each relevant in every context, that would be another game entirely. Because the number of 'slots' you need to fill is roughly the same regardless of how many roles each card suits, elegantly applying multiple roles to single cards just leaves empty slots that need to be otherwise filled. I'm not suggesting that elegance is a bad thing, but because we have a 'quota' to fill one way or another, being elegant actually winds up eating more resources (like design space) than is strictly necessary.
Similarly, the reason that CCGs require so many elements is that they play as several different games in one - this actually makes it necessary that elements are not relevant in every context, lest each of those games be prohibitively complex. CCGs have the conflicting goals of having enough elements to support several contexts but not so many that any one context is overloaded; the most obvious - if not only - way to achieve this is designing elements switch 'on' and 'off' based on the context in question. It may seem wasteful to have most cards obsolete in some circumstances, but it's important in limiting the number of 'moving parts' in those cases, which is what keeps the game playable...
EDIT: I was going to say that zOMG! might serve as an example of a case where the 'every card, every context' model could work; because the number of elements (rings) is already very small, and because the game itself controls the context (enemies), you might be able to get away with it. It's possible that PvE-CCGs are more conducive to that system in general than traditional ones, but I'd have to give it some more thought to say confidently; that said, I think we agree that HoC is a PvP game at heart, so I'm not sure the model applies so nicely there...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 6:21 pm
Don't know if it would help here, but with Chrome if say you press submit but get an error/disconnect page or whatever, you can go back and you'll find your text still in the form. I don't remember IE doing that ._o Red Kutai
Post system's eating my responses again. gonk
gataka I'm not following you: ideally, my super element would be as good at two jobs as two specialised elements would be at doing one of these two jobs individually. Somewhat like: 2 = 2 VS 1 + 1 = 2 In practice, that don't hold up much, elegance is darn hard to achieve, but, theoretically, I can't see the necessity of using disparate elements when a single could lead to the same result... ?
Normally, you're right; that sort of elegance is very useful, because it allows us to reduce the total number of elements involved. CCGs, however, require a certain 'critical mass' of elements in order to support their own weight - while we could probably reduce HoC down to one- or two-dozen cards which are each relevant in every context, that would be another game entirely. Because the number of 'slots' you need to fill is roughly the same regardless of how many roles each card suits, elegantly applying multiple roles to single cards just leaves empty slots that need to be otherwise filled. I'm not suggesting that elegance is a bad thing, but because we have a 'quota' to fill one way or another, being elegant actually winds up eating more resources (like design space) than is strictly necessary.
Similarly, the reason that CCGs require so many elements is that they play as several different games in one - this actually makes it necessary that elements are not relevant in every context, lest each of those games be prohibitively complex. CCGs have the conflicting goals of having enough elements to support several contexts but not so many that any one context is overloaded; the most obvious - if not only - way to achieve this is designing elements switch 'on' and 'off' based on the context in question. It may seem wasteful to have most cards obsolete in some circumstances, but it's important in limiting the number of 'moving parts' in those cases, which is what keeps the game playable...
EDIT: I was going to say that zOMG! might serve as an example of a case where the 'every card, every context' model could work; because the number of elements (rings) is already very small, and because the game itself controls the context (enemies), you might be able to get away with it. It's possible that PvE-CCGs are more conducive to that system in general than traditional ones, but I'd have to give it some more thought to say confidently; that said, I think we agree that HoC is a PvP game at heart, so I'm not sure the model applies so nicely there...
Nah, you're just giving examples where it can't happen. Not sure you're following me xD
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2013 8:32 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2013 10:06 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2013 3:52 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 4:00 pm
gataka jonjon21428 To tell you guys the truth, I usually just read everything posted in here... I feel too intimidated by all the amazing flowing around. sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2013 11:49 pm
maxitza To tell you guys the truth, I usually just read everything posted in here... I feel too intimidated by all the amazing flowing around. sweatdrop But if you try hard enough, you might get the Chorus Frog to say some things... ninja
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 01, 2013 7:53 pm
jonjon21428 ... ninja  ... I see. Oh sheesh ha ha! xD
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 01, 2013 8:27 pm
Last time I was here, I got banned. sad
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 02, 2013 9:59 am
Silk Kanishk Last time I was here, I got banned. sad Why? o3o
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 02, 2013 10:04 am
gataka Silk Kanishk Last time I was here, I got banned. sad Why? o3o Actually, it had nothing to with this guild. I just happened to be browsing here when I got banned for something entirely different. xd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 02, 2013 10:07 am
Silk Kanishk gataka Silk Kanishk Last time I was here, I got banned. sad Why? o3o Actually, it had nothing to with this guild. I just happened to be browsing here when I got banned for something entirely different. xd Ah. I can ban you from the guild if you want : D
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
