Innovating the PVE rewards (gold)

    • Innovating the PVE rewards (gold)

      One of the things some of us dislike about PVE is the strong incentive to play non-interactive fast decks that basically bypass the content due to rewards dropping by half at best once you start actually playing the game.

      There should certainly be a reward for success and speed.

      However I think it would be reasonable for some proportion of the gold to be awarded on some other basis (possibly even some % of which awarded even on a loss) such as:
      - time played (subject to actually being active)
      - actions taken
      - troops killed (per troop or for milestones)
      - damage dealt (ditto)
      - Hp gained
      - ... almost anything else you can do in the game.

      I know it's already been suggested that Bonuses might also be available for 'challenges' which would add to the optimisation challenge and I don't disdain but wouldn't do the same thing.

      I'd prefer the greatest rewards to still go for swift victory but it would be good for 'mucking about' to still get more than half the gold rate so long as it is done in a reasonably effective fashion.
    • I think the danger with other reward factors is the potential to exploit them i.e. farming foes who produce tons of 1/1 troops or heal themselves frequently.

      I would say there might be more organic ways of countering speed decks (though decks that barely need cards will always be an obstacle e.g. Vennen ranger), by implementing optional deck restrictions.

      For instance if there were a line of 0 cost 'tier 0' talents available on the talent tree...

      Exemplar
      You must include at least 20 troops in your deck which have one or more of the following traits: {your race, your class, your class affinities i.e. plant & beast for ranger}.
      + Loot reward for player character battles.

      Lead from the Front
      You cannot use mercenaries to battle in dungeons.
      + Loot reward for dungeons.
      (N.B. Can't just disable mercenaries full-stop as that will only gimp humans further & drive mercs towards irrelevance.)

      Stoic
      You cannot redraw your starting hand.
      + Loot reward for player character battles.
      (N.B. They may have already used that as a talent name!)
      Member of The Unnamed Council - the Hex TCG PvE Guild
    • Timlagor wrote:

      Mostly I want to push the gold/time idea so gold/hr = (A+x/t) rather than straight x/t making the speed less important (and diminishing value) but still significant.
      I have seen this in other games it leads to optimum time games where people will set up the win and then stall for optimum time instead. Not saying that has to be bad just a important thing to consider.
    • Corvus wrote:

      I think the danger with other reward factors is the potential to exploit them i.e. farming foes who produce tons of 1/1 troops or heal themselves frequently.

      I would say there might be more organic ways of countering speed decks (though decks that barely need cards will always be an obstacle e.g. Vennen ranger), by implementing optional deck restrictions.

      For instance if there were a line of 0 cost 'tier 0' talents available on the talent tree...

      Exemplar
      You must include at least 20 troops in your deck which have one or more of the following traits: {your race, your class, your class affinities i.e. plant & beast for ranger}.
      + Loot reward for player character battles.

      Lead from the Front
      You cannot use mercenaries to battle in dungeons.
      + Loot reward for dungeons.
      (N.B. Can't just disable mercenaries full-stop as that will only gimp humans further & drive mercs towards irrelevance.)

      Stoic
      You cannot redraw your starting hand.
      + Loot reward for player character battles.
      (N.B. They may have already used that as a talent name!)
      Now something like this would be nice, very nice
    • Wolzarg wrote:

      Timlagor wrote:

      Mostly I want to push the gold/time idea so gold/hr = (A+x/t) rather than straight x/t making the speed less important (and diminishing value) but still significant.
      I have seen this in other games it leads to optimum time games where people will set up the win and then stall for optimum time instead. Not saying that has to be bad just a important thing to consider.

      I imagined optimum time would still be as fast as possible but that may need more care than I thought.
    • Timlagor wrote:

      Wolzarg wrote:

      Timlagor wrote:

      Mostly I want to push the gold/time idea so gold/hr = (A+x/t) rather than straight x/t making the speed less important (and diminishing value) but still significant.
      I have seen this in other games it leads to optimum time games where people will set up the win and then stall for optimum time instead. Not saying that has to be bad just a important thing to consider.
      I imagined optimum time would still be as fast as possible but that may need more care than I thought.
      Honestly don't discount the solution if its almost as profitable to win in 10 minutes as it is to win in 2 more people will get a more fun time for similar rewards. I just wanted to point this out i still do like the solution. But i know other games where rewards where entierly based on time and i would just set up the win and then afk for 40 minutes which is far from optimal.
    • I've been saying this since shortly after FRA 1.0 launched. The game lacks any incentive to not just win in 2-3 turns.... so I'm on board with anything to reduce the gap.

      It's kind of silly that an equally optimized control deck will receive like 1/5 the rewards of an aggro deck.
      Gamer. Streamer. Photographer. Writer. Anime Lover. Possessor of Stuffed Animals.

      Also... I'm terrible at this game.
    • Corvus wrote:

      I think the danger with other reward factors is the potential to exploit them i.e. farming foes who produce tons of 1/1 troops or heal themselves frequently.

      I would say there might be more organic ways of countering speed decks (though decks that barely need cards will always be an obstacle e.g. Vennen ranger), by implementing optional deck restrictions.

      For instance if there were a line of 0 cost 'tier 0' talents available on the talent tree...

      Exemplar
      You must include at least 20 troops in your deck which have one or more of the following traits: {your race, your class, your class affinities i.e. plant & beast for ranger}.
      + Loot reward for player character battles.

      Lead from the Front
      You cannot use mercenaries to battle in dungeons.
      + Loot reward for dungeons.
      (N.B. Can't just disable mercenaries full-stop as that will only gimp humans further & drive mercs towards irrelevance.)

      Stoic
      You cannot redraw your starting hand.
      + Loot reward for player character battles.
      (N.B. They may have already used that as a talent name!)
      I fail to see how these would actually change much.
      Exemplar: People will just create the fastest aggro deck with at least 20 troops that share a trait with the champion.
      Lead from the Frost: People will just build the fastest aggro deck for the champion instead of the fastest deck for the mercenary.
      Stoic: People will just build the fastest aggro deck that relies on more than 3 cards to win.

      As I understand it, THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT REDUCING THE SPEED OF THE BEST DECKS, OR REPLACING 10/10 SPEED DECKS WITH 8/10 SPEED DECKS but instead making speed/aggro not as much of a consideration in the creation of the deck. Right now, there's 3 things that influence deckbuilding for PvE: reliability, speed and availability(/price). Ignore the third one, as the only way this would be affected somehow is by asking the devs to make fast cards UC/R/L only. So you have reliability and speed.

      Now, in order to make speed less of a factor, you have to hit reliability. A 10/10 speed, 8/10 reliability deck is certainly playable. A 10/10 speed, 6/10 not so much. And the way to hit a deck's reliability is only through the fights themselves, not the rewards. The obvious way to go about it is tailoring encounters to specificaly counter aggro (troop or burn aggro). However, as FRA 2.0 showed, people are not keen on straight up coutners and understandably so. Everyone hates railroading. So, what's the solution? Here are a few ideas:

      - Side objectives
      Remember the Hag encounter in AZ1? If you wanted to (it was not, by all means, necessary) you could bring reversion and revert the frog into Daphne. Afterwards, you were rewarded with a PvE card. If there were more fights like this, and the reward was extra Gold and not card/equipment (because then people would just run it once for equipment and 4 times for a card and then change to their fastest deck) and the Gold/minute is worth it, people wil go out of the way to make aggro decks.
      Example idea: "Magic Duel" Field effect has a sidebar that keeps track of every action casted successfuly (not interrupted) and every activatable troop ability. 1 cost action = 1 point, 2 cost action = 2 points etc. Obviously, since we want to avoid total railroading, the opponent AI should not Wrenlocke with an action-only deck like the Emberspire Witch in the FRA, but just be given a healthy amount of troops and actions. At the end of the fight, if the player scored more than the opponent, they get the extra reward. You 100% don't have to do that to beat the fight.
      Other ideas: Have equal/more constants on the field than the oponent. Have equal/more flying power than the opponent. Have equal/more cards left in deck than the opponent.

      - Phases
      Not that much different from the above, but does not include third objectives. Instead have certain clauses that trigger "something" from the boss. You have more total DEF power on board than the AI: it enters a Rage. You removed every troop from its board/deck: It puts on its robe and wizard hat.

      Now, as I said, the way things are right now, the incentive has to be better Gold/minute. If a Vennen ranger can finish the dungeon in 30min and make 350g/min, the Necrotic mage should finish it in 50min and make 500g/min. Card & equipment, in order to be considered worth the trouble after you get a playset (card) or one (equipment) must be something that can be sold and fetch a good price which, for PvE, it means it must be at least Legendary quality and even then, the amount that would enter the market would drive the price down. Stash items might be better, an amount of dust and, when consumables/crafting finaly becomes a thing, materials. Or even introduce a stash item as a chance drop from certain hard encounters that can be used to spin chests without paying the cost in Gold. This last thing is tricky to evaluate properly, but ti will have the sideeffect that it will revitalize the chest economy, because as it is now, only a few people spin Rare chests and even fewer spin Legendary chests. If you have an item that can spin them for free (or, more likely, it'll be something 1 key = spin Common, 5 keys = spin Uncommon, 15 keys = spin Rare, 40 keys = spin Legendary) more people will seek out chests (and maybe booster packs too).
    • The answer to this is simple, an achievement system! Make its rewards good enough so that you want them. Next atep is to do all sorts of crazy innovative things with it that would not only give tons of added replayability but would also insentify creative deck uilding around other objectives than farming gold.
      [Blocked Image: http://wardens.hexcompendium.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/cropped-wardens-of-entraht-logo-tranparent.png]
      The Wardens of Entrath is a large, open to public community of Hex enthusiasts with a mission to help and support Hex players and content creators alike!

      Find us on our Discord server or website!
    • CoachFliperon wrote:

      The answer to this is simple, an achievement system! Make its rewards good enough so that you want them. Next atep is to do all sorts of crazy innovative things with it that would not only give tons of added replayability but would also insentify creative deck uilding around other objectives than farming gold.
      Until you work out a strong solution for each achievement and post it on the forum :D


      I was looking for something more generic to make the incentive to play optimally much less strong.
      I'm not a fan of aggro (and the problem with FRA is very definitely not that it punishes aggro) but I don't necessarily want to make it not be the best gold farming route: I just want it not to be the best by so much.

      The 50 minute deck doesn't need to earn more gold, it doesn't even need parity, I just want non-optimised decks to earn more than half as much gold (and preferably more than 70%). [dungeons currently take about 12 minutes not 30]
      Merely moving the optimum to mid-range or control decks might be an improvement (at least it would matter a little what you were playing against) but wouldn't achieve what I'm looking for if they were doing it by hitting very specific targets as fast as possible.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Timlagor: 6 minutes just wrong - 6/hour is nearer the mark ().

    • Timlagor wrote:

      I was looking for something more generic to make the incentive to play optimally much less strong.
      That sentence just does not make sense.

      You will always try to be efficient at getting what you want. For example, if you really want the rewards at the end of a dungeon, you'll find the most efficient path (for you) to it. For a lot of players, that efficiency is in term of time it takes to get it. For some others, time is less of a factor and their enjoyment of the deck they play is the greater deciding factor. Either way, human nature is that we try to get what we want in what seems to be the most efficient route for us to get it (consciously or not).

      What cannot be done is having a reward that is both desirable and that doesn't reward being efficient at getting it. That does not exist. Any reward scheme that could ever be implemented will always have a "most" efficient way to get it.

      Maybe you wish you'd have a greater variety of objectives to pursue in PVE (which I would also be happy to have) but you will never, ever, remove time as a factor in pursuing any goals. Speed will always be a factor as long as there are desired results.

      More so, if you ever have a reward that you get by being "less efficient" in any meaningful amount, the value of such reward would just quickly devaluate to nothing as everyone would have it just as a byproduct of playing. If suddenly you need to put some amount of efforts to get it, there will be a most efficient way to do so and you'll be back to square one.

      This is why I suggested achievements. They are nice because they give you alternate objectives to try and achieve. If we get a significant amount of achievements to do, we'll have fun playing in many different ways for a very long time. Yes, each individual achievement will always have a most efficient way to get them, and yes time will always be a factor in it, but that is not something you can just remove.
      [Blocked Image: http://wardens.hexcompendium.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/cropped-wardens-of-entraht-logo-tranparent.png]
      The Wardens of Entrath is a large, open to public community of Hex enthusiasts with a mission to help and support Hex players and content creators alike!

      Find us on our Discord server or website!
    • Eraia wrote:

      Vroengard wrote:

      B/R Vennen ranger takes ~15min to clear GMG, not 6min.
      The Xocoy fateweave deck(I believe it was that one) does it in 5 according to Yasi's post last week. I see no reason why he'd lie.
      You have to understand that comparing numbers between players is pointless. I know very few, if any, that can achieve Yasi's numbers. You need to compare Yasi's number with other Yasi's numbers for them to be meaningful.

      One thing for sure, the 59 ruby + 1 Xocoy deck is the most consistent and quickest way to farm GMG for now. I've tested myself and I'm getting better results than while playing Spiders. Nowhere near the improvement Yasi claims but I'm not as skilled on execution either.
      [Blocked Image: http://wardens.hexcompendium.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/cropped-wardens-of-entraht-logo-tranparent.png]
      The Wardens of Entrath is a large, open to public community of Hex enthusiasts with a mission to help and support Hex players and content creators alike!

      Find us on our Discord server or website!
    • CoachFliperon wrote:

      The answer to this is simple, an achievement system! Make its rewards good enough so that you want them. Next atep is to do all sorts of crazy innovative things with it that would not only give tons of added replayability but would also insentify creative deck uilding around other objectives than farming gold.
      I think the same (achievement system is the way to reward playing different deck combinations - getting value out of the entire card catalog). It sounds like a great way to do that, but it's a lot of data to keep.

      Off the top of my head the following categories, with payout of gold at the 1,10,100,1000, etc levels for each account.
      • Games won with X card;
        • in deck
        • played
        • deployed triggered
        • deathcry triggered
        • entered the crypt
        • entered the void
      • Card gets the killing blow
      • Buries cards (last card buried should be tracked as well)
      • If a card has a win condition then that should be tracked
      [*]example - Engrossed Bibliophile
      [/list]System would track global stats for all the cards in game. Based upon the number of achievements a particular card had (globally) it would get a multiplier. Frequently played cards would have lower multiplier values (i.e. 'frequently played' = cards that had many achievements collected). When the system is launched, all the numbers start pretty low, ramping up overtime to the target values (to avoid paying out a lot of gold to those playing a lot immediately after go-live).

      So getting a killing blow with the Triumvirate would return (after the warm up period) a high bounty because it's just inherently more difficult to do. But if someone "solves" for how to get the killing blow with Triumvirate the values goes down because it's less rare (more bounties have been paid out).
    • I'm not getting that. If the user payout occurs at, "the 1,10,100,1000, etc levels for each account", why wouldn't I share the deck after the 10th play through? I'm really going to hold that info till after the 100th?

      Sorry for being daft, but I'm just not getting it.

      If you are saying that folks would need a way to determine less played cards then I think the multiplier should be visible on the card itself.

      Edit: if it was a problem, Hex could do a weekly article highlighting high-bounty decks from the previous week that had new/interesting card usage.
    • But if the cards and deck show you the estimated payout value in the game UI and Hex Ent showcases previous week high water marks how valuable is any specific deck from a payout perspective?

      And I guess I'm thinking the payouts aren't ever really that big, maybe half again the value you get out of a perfect clear for a mostly "new to me" deck? Also, the payout for getting the 100 mark shouldn't be 100x the payout for the 1 mark. Maybe doubling for every exponent (e..g 4x initial payment for the 100th achievement). Defintely not trying to give the player another OCD activity.

      The goal of the system is to encourage the player to play decks they wouldn't normally try, rather than create unicorns for folks to hunt. The multiplier is there as a way to reduce the achievement payout on popular netdecks because those decks already have their own value - they win a lot.