Stone me if you want, but - PvE???

    • Foxhold wrote:

      ShatteredGlass wrote:

      I find little difference between the staff building decks for the AI for a specific purpose, to entertain the person playing against it, and players building decks for the AI for the same purpose because, well that thing I just said. The real goal of the defender will be to get people to play against his gauntlet, and making the most challenging decks will to appeal to the section of the audience looking for the most challenging PVE content possible(a section that isn't being catered to at the moment might I add), but a good section is going to be looking for more of a combination of fun and challenging. At the end of the day, the guy building the defending decks needs to find customers, and those looking to have fun will outnumber those looking for the hardcorest of hardcore.If you try a random player's siege and it's boring or painful, you're likely to blacklist him and go try someone else's gauntlet, the same as if you ran into a dungeon you didn't like and went to do a new one instead.
      In and of itself, I overall want to agree with this. I really really do, and I do in theory and in spirit. Honestly, I do. The problem though, is monetization, which doesn't seem to factor into anything you said here. Remember, this is a fully monetized mode; both the defender and the attacker are required to buy in to it, and furthermore, the defender is required to fully re-buy into it every single time they are defeated. That's a strong incentive to not play this merely for fun. Honestly if the monetization component vanished, and they used some other form of incentive like some sort of exclusive currency or something that couldn't be obtained anywhere else, more or less all my issues with this would vanish, as they would become irrelevant. The other issues I've mentioned are really only relevant in the context of this mode being monetized, because then people are directly incentivized to be as cutthroat as they possibly can be, while still being able to lure people in. If anything, I'd expect to see defenses set up with one or two weak decks, specifically to draw people in, and then the most top-tier, expensive murder machine deck they can possibly cook up.
      As a result I wouldn't be terribly surprised to see this mode functionally unofficially split into two communities, but either way the issue of monetization is inescapable. Actually, THAT would be something as well. If it were possible for the defender to set up a defense with zero hoard, and the attacker to attack it for free, THEN I would also have absolutely zero issues with this mode, and would in fact actually like the idea of it, as THAT would allow for casual and goofy deck construction, and just doing things for fun without harming yourself in the process.
      Doing a 1000 gold defense is actually pretty much a zero cost defense though.
      do 1 dungeon run and you can set up 5-7 times a defense?
      Especially during the learning period and with testing deck against other players the 1000 gold defense is gonna be very usefull.
      I welcome the cost
    • Frederik wrote:

      Foxhold wrote:

      ShatteredGlass wrote:

      I find little difference between the staff building decks for the AI for a specific purpose, to entertain the person playing against it, and players building decks for the AI for the same purpose because, well that thing I just said. The real goal of the defender will be to get people to play against his gauntlet, and making the most challenging decks will to appeal to the section of the audience looking for the most challenging PVE content possible(a section that isn't being catered to at the moment might I add), but a good section is going to be looking for more of a combination of fun and challenging. At the end of the day, the guy building the defending decks needs to find customers, and those looking to have fun will outnumber those looking for the hardcorest of hardcore.If you try a random player's siege and it's boring or painful, you're likely to blacklist him and go try someone else's gauntlet, the same as if you ran into a dungeon you didn't like and went to do a new one instead.
      In and of itself, I overall want to agree with this. I really really do, and I do in theory and in spirit. Honestly, I do. The problem though, is monetization, which doesn't seem to factor into anything you said here. Remember, this is a fully monetized mode; both the defender and the attacker are required to buy in to it, and furthermore, the defender is required to fully re-buy into it every single time they are defeated. That's a strong incentive to not play this merely for fun. Honestly if the monetization component vanished, and they used some other form of incentive like some sort of exclusive currency or something that couldn't be obtained anywhere else, more or less all my issues with this would vanish, as they would become irrelevant. The other issues I've mentioned are really only relevant in the context of this mode being monetized, because then people are directly incentivized to be as cutthroat as they possibly can be, while still being able to lure people in. If anything, I'd expect to see defenses set up with one or two weak decks, specifically to draw people in, and then the most top-tier, expensive murder machine deck they can possibly cook up.As a result I wouldn't be terribly surprised to see this mode functionally unofficially split into two communities, but either way the issue of monetization is inescapable. Actually, THAT would be something as well. If it were possible for the defender to set up a defense with zero hoard, and the attacker to attack it for free, THEN I would also have absolutely zero issues with this mode, and would in fact actually like the idea of it, as THAT would allow for casual and goofy deck construction, and just doing things for fun without harming yourself in the process.
      Doing a 1000 gold defense is actually pretty much a zero cost defense though.do 1 dungeon run and you can set up 5-7 times a defense?
      Especially during the learning period and with testing deck against other players the 1000 gold defense is gonna be very usefull.
      I welcome the cost
      I have to agree 1000 gold is literally nothing sure they could have made free an option but 1000 gold is basically free.
    • Foxhold wrote:

      Wolzarg wrote:

      I have to agree 1000 gold is literally nothing sure they could have made free an option but 1000 gold is basically free.
      "literally nothing" and "basically free" are mutually exclusive, though.
      They're only mutually exclusive for technically correct definitions of literally. If you're using literally as a synonym for figuratively because you enjoy brutally battering the English language, then those two phrases aren't mutually exclusive.
    • Jesus Christ, the language police is on high alert. I hope i do not get the death penalty!

      {I have to agree, 1000 gold is basically nothing. But they could have added a free option and it would have made some people happier.}

      See enclosed statement submitted for review by the council of language and prosperity.
    • Wolzarg wrote:

      they could have added a free option and it would have made some people happier
      Everyone except HXE, which is (presumably) doing its best to stay afloat financialy. If there was a free mode, noone except the people who would put a 10,000 plat hoard and higher would assign any hoard. And how many people would gamble to fight that? 10? 100?
    • Okay just reporting in because i felt a little bit stranded after doing all of Zone 2, i felt like i was missing the exit or had bugged out a quest (closing the game during dialog or something)
      ... but it turns out after the game being out for 4 years, there are only two zones ... i kinda had this feeling of not being a novice anymore, of my adventures having successfully started up, of being very underlevelt for the old man of the sea, of being like 20-30% through the game ... and it just ends.

      I am not interested in the PVE Arena thing (i dont even play my deck), I am not interested in PVE (thats why i came to hex in the first place ... PVE magic basically) so now the game is pretty much done for me.

      Which is kinda sad, because i really liked it. I mean it would have been a dick move to have the rest of the game cost like 100.000k gold or some plat, but i mean i would have payed .-.
    • Maric wrote:

      Okay just reporting in because i felt a little bit stranded after doing all of Zone 2, i felt like i was missing the exit or had bugged out a quest (closing the game during dialog or something)
      ... but it turns out after the game being out for 4 years, there are only two zones ... i kinda had this feeling of not being a novice anymore, of my adventures having successfully started up, of being very underlevelt for the old man of the sea, of being like 20-30% through the game ... and it just ends.

      I am not interested in the PVE Arena thing (i dont even play my deck), I am not interested in PVE (thats why i came to hex in the first place ... PVE magic basically) so now the game is pretty much done for me.

      Which is kinda sad, because i really liked it. I mean it would have been a dick move to have the rest of the game cost like 100.000k gold or some plat, but i mean i would have payed .-.
      Welcome to the party.

      Out of curiosity, did you read the first 72 pages?
    • Funktion wrote:

      1000 gold is already close enough
      I'm sorry, but paying 400 gold PER PVE MATCH is nowhere near free. Especially if you have a low winrate, which quite a few casual players likely will.

      Remember, 1000 gold is not the total cost, it's 40% of that PER ATTEMPT someone wants to make.
      Gamer. Streamer. Photographer. Writer. Anime Lover. Possessor of Stuffed Animals.

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

      Funktion wrote:

      1000 gold is already close enough
      I'm sorry, but paying 400 gold PER PVE MATCH is nowhere near free. Especially if you have a low winrate, which quite a few casual players likely will.
      Remember, 1000 gold is not the total cost, it's 40% of that PER ATTEMPT someone wants to make.
      It is less than a common chest spin, it is roughly 2-3 encounters in the FRA, it is less than 2 cents. I get the math & sure there might be people that are only interested in playing it if it is free; however, those players will already be able to play against their own keeps, which they can potentially get lists from elsewhere.

      If you think 400 gold is nowhere near free then this is something that you and I are never gonna agree on. Which is totally fine btw :)!
    • Funktion wrote:

      It is less than a common chest spin, it is roughly 2-3 encounters in the FRA, it is less than 2 cents. I get the math & sure there might be people that are only interested in playing it if it is free; however, those players will already be able to play against their own keeps, which they can potentially get lists from elsewhere.

      If you think 400 gold is nowhere near free then this is something that you and I are never gonna agree on. Which is totally fine btw :)!
      400 gold is only 'nearly free' if you're sitting on a huge standard collection and aren't likely to have a low winrate.

      For people who can't put together a high quality standard deck, 400 gold will feel very high since they'll be basically paying the equivalent of 2 full pve encounters to lose in 3 turns to the crazy pve decks people put together.

      It's all about perspective. That's not to say I don't agree the cost is necessary, but I wish some of the people who are sitting on full playsets of every set would take a second to recognize that not everyone has that luxury and that how high costs FEEL is a relative thing. I mean, to a billionaire, going on a million dollar trip is nothing... but to most of us... ;)
      Gamer. Streamer. Photographer. Writer. Anime Lover. Possessor of Stuffed Animals.

      Also... I'm terrible at this game.
    • Just wanted to chime in, as I see both sides of this argument.

      Side A: I spend gold as quickly as I earn it, so I rarely have much. I'm still trying to full-art a bunch of my cards, several of which are AA or promos. So every time I get up to 25k gold, I immediately spend it. I'm not sitting on stockpiles of gold, so an investment of 1000 gold (or 400gp per play to challenge someone) is not trivial.

      Side B: However, it doesn't take long to earn that kind of gold. You can get a few thousand gold by running one dungeon. And I totally understand the need to enforce some kind of minimum investment.

      I haven't tried siege yet, but overall it sounds really cool, and I don't have a problem with how it was implemented (yet).

      There's my two cents. Actually two cents seems too much, since I didn't really advance the conversation. :P
    • I'm not sitting on anywhere near a full standard playset and I don't think 400 gold feels noticeable one bit. I do think with design it is very easy to fall into a trap of being concerned about players that do exist but don't represent a significant portion of your player/customer base, that you start designing for them and in doing so water down the experience for everyone else.

      Also... for every 1000 gold stronghold (meaning it was just created and nobody has run vs it) that is some pve deck that someone with a robust collection built and can smash as fast as you think it can... there's going to be dramatically more that are not at that power level. Putting things into perspective, will what you're suggesting happen? Sure it will happen, but will it be frequent AND will the player who lost have a big enough negative play experience that 400 gold ruins their day? I find that pretty unlikely. TCG players are pretty open to the idea that they are gonna lose from time to time and that losing can have a monetary cost to it.

      All that said, there are still some really cool things players will be able to accomplish with the ability to play against their own keep decks.
    • Unless part of the bounty is paid out by the game, rather than the player, this gamemode is built on a 'majority lose' rule.

      You get 20% of the bounty you set back whenever a player challenges your keep. This means that four out of five players that challenge you, need to lose, or else you lose. Even with the increasing hoard value, you'd need more than half of the players that challenge your keep to lose or you're getting a money drain.

      This is going to be min-maxing hell, which we already have in the form of FRA 2.0.
    • Firellius wrote:

      Unless part of the bounty is paid out by the game, rather than the player, this gamemode is built on a 'majority lose' rule.

      You get 20% of the bounty you set back whenever a player challenges your keep. This means that four out of five players that challenge you, need to lose, or else you lose. Even with the increasing hoard value, you'd need more than half of the players that challenge your keep to lose or you're getting a money drain.

      This is going to be min-maxing hell, which we already have in the form of FRA 2.0.
      You're forgetting that every single time your defense gets beaten, you also have to log in to the game and reset your hoard too. Just for more funsies. :)
    • The keeps sound like a good idea but in my eyes are doomed. The cut hex does take is way to big anything more then 5% is to much see AH. Also it takes out currency and destroy's it so it can't be used for farming we already have to many gold sinks and not enough good ways to farm gold , I barely manage to roll my small chests and buy enough kismet's packs. In my eyes it's only a gimmick to give people player generated "pve" content. Also the A.I. is still to crappy for that idea they have and I didn't see any major upgrade to the A.I. in the last months it even get worse with playing cards negative cards on itself then on it's opponent. Also they did allow to make them with platin in my eyes a big mistake. I hope we can a test phase on test server and i hope they will make some changes to it before fully launching it, right now i don't like it it's like a ponzy scheme for hex to make money and everyone else loose and the don't even need to create pve content as the players have to do that.

      Firellius wrote:




      This is going to be min-maxing hell, which we already have in the form of FRA 2.0.
      Yeah it will be as fun as FRA 2.0 so i am sure i won't play attacker, maybe put a keep if some of my issues get adressed. :)