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

    • Vroengard wrote:

      Thread has indeed slowed down but it hasn't stopped spawning new topics. This topic about how monetization can be implemented is new (to this thread at least).

      And to return the thread to where it is supposed to be (instead of being derailed talking about my person and how game reviewers the caliber of TotalBiscuit are wrong), I would advise AGAINST any kind of pre-payment for HXE PvE content. That's because it would be like a second mini-KS and HXE already failed in one.

      As far as paying for content, like I previously said, there's a limit to what's acceptable. There's a line between what would be morally good and what's a cashgrab.

      P.S. Quote this for Funktion too, as he doesn't realize that blocking people loses him far more than he thinks it gains him.
      you were the first one to bring up season passes...none of the rest of us were talking about any such thing. I agree a season pass would be a bad idea...which is why function and I didnt bring it up.

      Blackwood wrote:

      Attackers have Standard legal decks with no reserves which must overcome all three defense decks, which have unfettered access. I'm admittedly a little bit bummed that defenders get all PVE cards accessible, simply by virtue of the fact that it diminishes the incentive to really chase after building a collection of PVE cards--but if that's what is necessary to encourage broader participation, so be it.
      defenders have access to all pve cards they have in their collection...not all pve cards ever made. that is what they said in the article. They only said that all pve stuff is allowed, not that you can use it all without getting it into your collection first.
    • Foxhold wrote:

      I'm saying thematically this is suspect. It seems silly to defend keeps that don't exist is all, there would seem to me at least to be a logical progression to how such things should be implemented.
      So, what you're saying is, we ought to have Strongholds, inside of which there are keeps and all your account's Gold and Platinum is there as well. And if it's there, because you have an account and a Stronghold, it can always be attacked because you can't opt out of having an account. And God forbid if you haven't set Keep decks because you'll obviously lose all your account's Gold and Platinum without a fight. Or, if we want to be truly realistic, if the opponent wins a perfect game (as in, you have no Keep defence decks) it should take over your Stronghold, aka your account.

      Hope you see that the realistic things you're asking for are extremely problematic.
    • I'd classify it as PvE. You're playing against an AI that will be using equipment, or you're creating PvE decks. It's on-demand content that doesn't require another player sitting across the screen. In most cases, it's very similar to campaign. Only difference is that you're using a standard deck instead of equipment and champions. I hope we can get to that point soon, but even without it it feels like PvE content to me.

      As for lacking theme, I'd say it's a terrible argument. There's no point in delaying something that's ready to release until strongholds are fully implemented, especially since it'd have been part of the stronghold release anyways. We can get it when its ready instead of waiting.
      Old username: Aradon | Collector backer | Starting a guild for Newbies -- "The Cerulean Acadamy" -- Taking applications once guilds are implemented
    • Sukebe wrote:

      you were the first one to bring up season passes...none of the rest of us were talking about any such thing. I agree a season pass would be a bad idea...which is why function and I didnt bring it up.
      People didn't call it "Season pass" maybe because they're not aware of that's what it's called, but they did talk about preemptive payment for future content. also

      SaintVicarious wrote:

      Though to be honest, a season pass could make sense if HEX ever knuckles down and actually worries about PvE.
    • Vroengard wrote:

      Foxhold wrote:

      I'm saying thematically this is suspect. It seems silly to defend keeps that don't exist is all, there would seem to me at least to be a logical progression to how such things should be implemented.
      So, what you're saying is, we ought to have Strongholds, inside of which there are keeps and all your account's Gold and Platinum is there as well. And if it's there, because you have an account and a Stronghold, it can always be attacked because you can't opt out of having an account. And God forbid if you haven't set Keep decks because you'll obviously lose all your account's Gold and Platinum without a fight. Or, if we want to be truly realistic, if the opponent wins a perfect game (as in, you have no Keep defence decks) it should take over your Stronghold, aka your account.
      Hope you see that the realistic things you're asking for are extremely problematic.
      No. Exaggeration is not a good substitution for an argument.

      What I was saying was that jumping straight to a Defend mode, implies that you're intentionally putting something you already had flawlessly defended out in the open because...reasons. I didn't say flawless realism, if I wanted that I wouldn't be playing a video game in the first place. I just value thematic consistency, personally. If you have a mode and could just as easily have called it Casino Battle Royale and otherwise made it exactly the same, then it fails to communicate any association with any hypothetical Keep.

      Obsidian wrote:

      I'd classify it as PvE. You're playing against an AI that will be using equipment, or you're creating PvE decks. It's on-demand content that doesn't require another player sitting across the screen. In most cases, it's very similar to campaign. Only difference is that you're using a standard deck instead of equipment and champions. I hope we can get to that point soon, but even without it it feels like PvE content to me.

      As for lacking theme, I'd say it's a terrible argument. There's no point in delaying something that's ready to release until strongholds are fully implemented, especially since it'd have been part of the stronghold release anyways. We can get it when its ready instead of waiting.
      No. You are playing against an AI, yes, but it will be using equipment that a player told it to, and actively adjusts over time, and that latter bit is the key point here. These defenses will shift with available sets and popularized netdecks, which means you have to buy the latest sets (in fact, to play this mode you are REQUIRED to buy the latest sets, this IS a paid game mode) and make sure you're using approved netdecks to counter the current metagame and...gee, actually, that sounds like a textbook definition of PvP. The only difference is that they put a bot between the two players, hence why I said it's just PvP with extra steps.

      You'll notice also that I said this content wasn't unwelcome..."I'm not saying the mode is necessarily bad or unwelcome..."...just that it lacked thematic consistency. I did not once say that it should have been delayed until strongholds were fully implemented, or until any other arbitrary limiter.
    • Vroengard wrote:

      Sukebe wrote:

      you were the first one to bring up season passes...none of the rest of us were talking about any such thing. I agree a season pass would be a bad idea...which is why function and I didnt bring it up.
      People didn't call it "Season pass" maybe because they're not aware of that's what it's called, but they did talk about preemptive payment for future content. also

      SaintVicarious wrote:

      Though to be honest, a season pass could make sense if HEX ever knuckles down and actually worries about PvE.

      I can't speak for function but I never said (or intended to say) that adventure zones should be paid for in advance. I only ever envisioned them being paid for one they are done and you want to play them. I do have a couple season passes on games so I was aware of them. However, as others pointed out, hex only releases at most 1 adventure zone a year so a season pass would be...rather useless.

      Also, saint only started talking about season passes after you brought it up :)
    • Again, people did talk about giving money before the content was released as funds or as a second mini-KS. They did not call it a seasonal pass. I don't know why. It is still 99% a seasonal pass.

      What's in a name? That which we call a rose season pass
      By any other name would smell as sweet. suck the same
    • Foxhold wrote:

      No. You are playing against an AI, yes, but it will be using equipment that a player told it to, and actively adjusts over time, and that latter bit is the key point here.
      And that is exactly what I see some player asking ....


      Foxhold wrote:

      (in fact, to play this mode you are REQUIRED to buy the latest sets, this IS a paid game mode
      That false you don't have to buy latest set.
      Again I see people here asking for a paid mode in PVE ...



      For me it's
      1 A welcome annoucment
      2 What player in this thread ask in majority
    • VicMan wrote:

      2 What player in this thread ask in majority
      There's like ten people actively posting in this thread at the moment. We don't matter. :)

      As far as the discussion on Season Pass or Kickstarter or whatever goes, there's a key difference. Typically "Season Pass" is associated with new AAA titles, and asks you to further invest in a product no one has ever played, and frequently come with immediate unlocks of content, which means the content is already in the game and just locked away.

      Neither is true in this case; we know exactly what hypothetical future AZ's would be like, and we're pretty well past day one DLC at this point. So there is a significant and relevant difference. Those proposing another prepay for more PvE are doing so under the assumption that Hex has already proven they can make fun content but lack the resources to do so.
    • Vroengard wrote:

      Again, people did talk about giving money before the content was released as funds or as a second mini-KS. They did not call it a seasonal pass. I don't know why. It is still 99% a seasonal pass.

      What's in a name? That which we call a rose season pass
      By any other name would smell as sweet. suck the same
      could you show me a post that mentioned paying ahead of time before you posted about season passes? Unless you were referring to people that wanted another kickstarter I don't think you will find one. I don't really count those asking for another kickstarter because that has almost 0 chance of happening.

      Either way, that was not what function and were talking about. I just want to see more pve content and am more than happy to pay for it. I don't mean ahead of time, I mean when it is ready.

      Edit:


      Foxhold wrote:

      VicMan wrote:

      That false you don't have to buy latest set.
      Forgot to address this up front but an attacker is required to use a Standard legal deck. So I said setS, not set, but yes, you are required to buy the latest cards to play this mode as an attacker.
      You don't have to buy full sets...there are some cheap but powerful decks that will likely do very well. we will have to see how this goes of course but I would bet that budget decks that are played well will have a fair chance of beating most decks played by the AI.
    • Foxhold wrote:

      Obsidian wrote:

      I'd classify it as PvE. You're playing against an AI that will be using equipment, or you're creating PvE decks. It's on-demand content that doesn't require another player sitting across the screen. In most cases, it's very similar to campaign. Only difference is that you're using a standard deck instead of equipment and champions. I hope we can get to that point soon, but even without it it feels like PvE content to me.

      As for lacking theme, I'd say it's a terrible argument. There's no point in delaying something that's ready to release until strongholds are fully implemented, especially since it'd have been part of the stronghold release anyways. We can get it when its ready instead of waiting.
      No. You are playing against an AI, yes, but it will be using equipment that a player told it to, and actively adjusts over time, and that latter bit is the key point here. These defenses will shift with available sets and popularized netdecks, which means you have to buy the latest sets (in fact, to play this mode you are REQUIRED to buy the latest sets, this IS a paid game mode) and make sure you're using approved netdecks to counter the current metagame and...gee, actually, that sounds like a textbook definition of PvP. The only difference is that they put a bot between the two players, hence why I said it's just PvP with extra steps.
      You'll notice also that I said this content wasn't unwelcome..."I'm not saying the mode is necessarily bad or unwelcome..."...just that it lacked thematic consistency. I did not once say that it should have been delayed until strongholds were fully implemented, or until any other arbitrary limiter.
      I would definitely call this content PVE, though this is a bit a matter of personal definition. I would, however say that it's as PVE as FRA is, which has it's own net decks and metagame, neither of which I consider elements of PVP as not all PVP is about metagames and net decks(nor is PVE devoid of these things as stated above). PVP is a much broader definition that includes everything from Bash decks, limited play and casual play like kitchen table games where friends play against each other with random nonsense(casual PVP is hex's most underdeveloped format atm to be honest, but that's another topic entirely).

      I also wouldn't say the player built part or testing cycle doesn't make it PVE as I see little difference when it comes to who builds the decks or whether they are balanced by and against the public at large or an internal testing team; in all cases decks are being built and refined for play by an AI against a human. The only major difference is other PVE content has a static meta while Siege will have a dynamic one. FRA and campaign has always had net decks the same as any constructed environment.

      Furthermore, being restricted to standard cards and having to acquire new cards over time is a good thing for PVE. All PVE being immortal is bad for the long term health of the game; it is becoming progressively harder for HXE, or anyone else for that matter, to build challenging encounters and it demotivates people who are content with having a few good decks from spending more on the game or trying new things. A PVE without rotations will be eventually end up as a degenerate mess that no serious content can be made for.
    • Sukebe wrote:

      You don't have to buy full sets...there are some cheap but powerful decks that will likely do very well. we will have to see how this goes of course but I would bet that budget decks that are played well will have a fair chance of beating most decks played by the AI.
      Okay, to be fair I did say sets, but I had thought it clear I meant buy cards from the current sets, as opposed to having the entire thing. However, it's worth pointing out that those decks that the AI is playing are going to be the same two or three turn kill decks that players have devised elsewhere. It's all the fiendish and downright broken combos and abilities people have ever been allowed to come up with, specifically because they're never allowed to be used against people...being used against people.

      ShatteredGlass wrote:

      Foxhold wrote:

      No. You are playing against an AI, yes, but it will be using equipment that a player told it to, and actively adjusts over time, and that latter bit is the key point here. These defenses will shift with available sets and popularized netdecks, which means you have to buy the latest sets (in fact, to play this mode you are REQUIRED to buy the latest sets, this IS a paid game mode) and make sure you're using approved netdecks to counter the current metagame and...gee, actually, that sounds like a textbook definition of PvP. The only difference is that they put a bot between the two players, hence why I said it's just PvP with extra steps.You'll notice also that I said this content wasn't unwelcome..."I'm not saying the mode is necessarily bad or unwelcome..."...just that it lacked thematic consistency. I did not once say that it should have been delayed until strongholds were fully implemented, or until any other arbitrary limiter.
      I would definitely call this content PVE, though this is a bit a matter of personal definition. I would, however say that it's as PVE as FRA is, which has it's own net decks and metagame, neither of which I consider elements of PVP as not all PVP is about metagames and net decks(nor is PVE devoid of these things as stated above). PVP is a much broader definition that includes everything from Bash decks, limited play and casual play like kitchen table games where friends play against each other with random nonsense(casual PVP is hex's most underdeveloped format atm to be honest, but that's another topic entirely).
      I also wouldn't say the player built part or testing cycle doesn't make it PVE as I see little difference when it comes to who builds the decks or whether they are balanced by and against the public at large or an internal testing team; in all cases decks are being built and refined for play by an AI against a human. The only major difference is other PVE content has a static meta while Siege will have a dynamic one. FRA and campaign has always had net decks the same as any constructed environment.

      Furthermore, being restricted to standard cards and having to acquire new cards over time is a good thing for PVE. All PVE being immortal is bad for the long term health of the game; it is becoming progressively harder for HXE, or anyone else for that matter, to build challenging encounters and it demotivates people who are content with having a few good decks from spending more on the game or trying new things. A PVE without rotations will be eventually end up as a degenerate mess that no serious content can be made for.
      There's a key difference: PvE is static. Sure, it gets patched now and again, but overall PvE is static. Once you've fought someone, you know who they are and what they do, and can figure out a counter-strategy. That's part of the whole point of PvE games. So, yes, while people have good FRA decks, they're known to be good for FRA because FRA itself is a static, known quantity. This isn't that, at all. I'm not saying it isn't, by the literal definition of the term, PvE. I am, however, saying that if PvP is Coke and PvE is apple juice then on that scale this is Coke Zero. It's as PvP as it's possible for something with a bot in it to be, and for me, doesn't remove many of my frustrations with PvP environments such as the complete ban on theme or creativity, as overall your options are play with the current handful of approved decks or lose, and the requirement to stay on top of that and constantly be grabbing at whatever the newest cards are whether you like them or not. I haven't bought a pack in a long long time, because I hate that Hex completely abandoned all of the core races, the war, the Ardent/Underworld factions, all of that stuff, and I liked playing racial decks. The war just...vanished. If I want to play this mode, though, I'm required to use those cards anyway. Being able to use whatever I want, whether it's good or not, and maybe even make it work is part of the charm of PvE for me.

      In the second paragraph you touched on what I was saying above about static versus dynamic metagames, and yeah, that is in and of itself not necessarily a problem, but it informs other problems taken in the overall context. If you see very little difference between the game's designers making decks and the public at large, though, then I would point you towards the countless times a Magic set has been utterly broken within days of being released such that it shatters the entire tournament environment. This has happened many, many times. The same holds true for other competitive card games as well. With an AZ, I can sit here and say, "this dungeon sucks. I'll go play a different one." With Siege this can potentially not be an option though, all it takes is that one release where someone finds some kind of loophole, and suddenly every single player is using it, and your options are to run the approved counter, if there is one, or lose. The fact that AIs in AZs and such are intentionally designed with potentially subpar, but thematic and interesting decks, is part of the charm as well.

      Finally, I don't disagree on the last point. I was just pointing out that you are required to do so with this, but not with the AZs. It's a departure that merits consideration is all. Personally, though, I'd actually be on board for AZs having some sort of bonus for using a Standard-legal deck (with strictly PvE cards allowed, obviously), you earn extra gold or something along those lines. Then they can design all content around Standard, and if someone feels like breaking it with Immortal decks bully for them, they don't get much for doing it though. Best of both worlds.
    • Foxhold wrote:

      I haven't bought a pack in a long long time, because I hate that Hex completely abandoned all of the core races, the war, the Ardent/Underworld factions, all of that stuff, and I liked playing racial decks. The war just...vanished
      ANd that is your iponion and taste. I love the fact that we change environment and see other place of Enthrat.

      Foxhold wrote:

      this dungeon sucks. I'll go play a different one." With Siege this can potentially not be an option though,
      Unless there is only one player who defend you can just take someone else and no there will be no loophole.

      If everyone use the same deck as a defender it will be easy to beat it or if it's not the case it will be no attak so no gain for the defender. (same argument for the opposite)
    • Foxhold wrote:

      There's a key difference: PvE is static. Sure, it gets patched now and again, but overall PvE is static.
      That's the little thing though, PVE doesn't have to be a static experience. What would you call it if the developer constantly changed the decks from day to day or if the AI built it's own decks in response to what was being played against it? Just because an experience is dynamic doesn't make it any less PVP.

      Foxhold wrote:

      I am, however, saying that if PvP is Coke and PvE is apple juice then on that scale this is Coke Zero. It's as PvP as it's possible for something with a bot in it to be, and for me, doesn't remove many of my frustrations with PvP environments such as the complete ban on theme or creativity, as overall your options are play with the current handful of approved decks or lose, and the requirement to stay on top of that and constantly be grabbing at whatever the newest cards are whether you like them or not. I haven't bought a pack in a long long time, because I hate that Hex completely abandoned all of the core races, the war, the Ardent/Underworld factions, all of that stuff, and I liked playing racial decks. The war just...vanished. If I want to play this mode, though, I'm required to use those cards anyway. Being able to use whatever I want, whether it's good or not, and maybe even make it work is part of the charm of PvE for me.
      There is still plenty of room for theme and creativity as the keep builder themselves isn't under any obligation to make the hardest or most challenging concept. Also, with the inclusion of PVE cards, some themes are actually strong options for the AI. From the attacking end, a handful of approved common decks will be great from a defender's perspective, as having a static field would allow you to build a perfect defense, except that's probably not going to be the case, as decks that fly far outside the common pool will more than likely be the best at tearing down a well tuned defense. I've watched enough hex PVP to see well tuned meta decks fall apart when faced with random piles of jank that they weren't expecting. At the top end there will be a great deal of creativity and even a little theme; it's just going to be more directed towards overcoming specific challenges, and there is plenty of room for more casual things as well.

      Hex's last two sets have been exploring a side story off in the frost ring arena; they didn't abandon the war as it's still lurking in the background, they're just exploring another part of the world and tell a tale in that setting that I'm fairly certain will be connected back to the original plot more directly in the future. I personally like the racial themes of the first four sets as well, but I also like exploring and playing with other things. It would quite frankly get stale if it was all tribal all the time or all war all the time.

      The nature of dynamic content means that new cards will always be of interest mechanically. If you dislike a mechanical approach to deck building and carry a grudge against the themes of sets, then this is probably not the format for you, and that is fine. Card games are full of plenty of formats and almost no one likes all of them, but that doesn't make it any less PVE. No part of PVE is defined by being able to use all the cards you like, nor should it be really.

      Foxhold wrote:

      In the second paragraph you touched on what I was saying above about static versus dynamic metagames, and yeah, that is in and of itself not necessarily a problem, but it informs other problems taken in the overall context. If you see very little difference between the game's designers making decks and the public at large, though, then I would point you towards the countless times a Magic set has been utterly broken within days of being released such that it shatters the entire tournament environment. This has happened many, many times. The same holds true for other competitive card games as well. With an AZ, I can sit here and say, "this dungeon sucks. I'll go play a different one." With Siege this can potentially not be an option though, all it takes is that one release where someone finds some kind of loophole, and suddenly every single player is using it, and your options are to run the approved counter, if there is one, or lose. The fact that AIs in AZs and such are intentionally designed with potentially subpar, but thematic and interesting decks, is part of the charm as well.
      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.
    • VicMan wrote:

      ANd that is your iponion and taste. I love the fact that we change environment and see other place of Enthrat.
      Which I have made no secret of. As I've said from the beginning, this is entirely my personal opinion, and I bear no ill will towards anyone that disagrees. Friendly differences of opinion make for interesting conversation, as evidenced by just a bit earlier in this thread where people were complaining the thread was just a bunch of people sitting around agreeing with each other.

      Furthermore I have no problem with changing environments, in and of itself. Zero issue with that. I'm just saying I would have liked to have seen even just a couple cards in each set still related to the overall war that in theory is happening this whole time.

      VicMan wrote:

      Unless there is only one player who defend you can just take someone else and no there will be no loophole.
      If everyone use the same deck as a defender it will be easy to beat it or if it's not the case it will be no attak so no gain for the defender. (same argument for the opposite)
      This argument assumes every set of the game is flawlessly balanced; if not, then it begins to fall apart.

      ShatteredGlass wrote:

      Foxhold wrote:

      There's a key difference: PvE is static. Sure, it gets patched now and again, but overall PvE is static.
      That's the little thing though, PVE doesn't have to be a static experience. What would you call it if the developer constantly changed the decks from day to day or if the AI built it's own decks in response to what was being played against it? Just because an experience is dynamic doesn't make it any less PVP.
      Dynamic is a relative concept. No AI is dynamic; they all operate off of programming. A typical component of playing against an AI is learning how it's programmed, and then exploiting that. This isn't entirely unlike a player, where you can learn how they react to various things, but it's still far more formulaic. At the end of the day this component of it is inescapable.

      ShatteredGlass wrote:


      Foxhold wrote:

      I am, however, saying that if PvP is Coke and PvE is apple juice then on that scale this is Coke Zero. It's as PvP as it's possible for something with a bot in it to be, and for me, doesn't remove many of my frustrations with PvP environments such as the complete ban on theme or creativity, as overall your options are play with the current handful of approved decks or lose, and the requirement to stay on top of that and constantly be grabbing at whatever the newest cards are whether you like them or not. I haven't bought a pack in a long long time, because I hate that Hex completely abandoned all of the core races, the war, the Ardent/Underworld factions, all of that stuff, and I liked playing racial decks. The war just...vanished. If I want to play this mode, though, I'm required to use those cards anyway. Being able to use whatever I want, whether it's good or not, and maybe even make it work is part of the charm of PvE for me.
      There is still plenty of room for theme and creativity as the keep builder themselves isn't under any obligation to make the hardest or most challenging concept. Also, with the inclusion of PVE cards, some themes are actually strong options for the AI. From the attacking end, a handful of approved common decks will be great from a defender's perspective, as having a static field would allow you to build a perfect defense, except that's probably not going to be the case, as decks that fly far outside the common pool will more than likely be the best at tearing down a well tuned defense. I've watched enough hex PVP to see well tuned meta decks fall apart when faced with random piles of jank that they weren't expecting. At the top end there will be a great deal of creativity and even a little theme; it's just going to be more directed towards overcoming specific challenges, and there is plenty of room for more casual things as well.
      Hex's last two sets have been exploring a side story off in the frost ring arena; they didn't abandon the war as it's still lurking in the background, they're just exploring another part of the world and tell a tale in that setting that I'm fairly certain will be connected back to the original plot more directly in the future. I personally like the racial themes of the first four sets as well, but I also like exploring and playing with other things. It would quite frankly get stale if it was all tribal all the time or all war all the time.

      The nature of dynamic content means that new cards will always be of interest mechanically. If you dislike a mechanical approach to deck building and carry a grudge against the themes of sets, then this is probably not the format for you, and that is fine. Card games are full of plenty of formats and almost no one likes all of them, but that doesn't make it any less PVE. No part of PVE is defined by being able to use all the cards you like, nor should it be really.
      For your first point they really are obligated to though, unless they have an endless stream of money to keep pumping into this system as their hoard will be emptied every single time they get attacked then. This in turn means there isn't really room for anything casual about this, as gold is directly related to platinum, which means people are in effect both gaining and losing real money on this mode. I'll grant that I'm operating under the assumption that the average player doesn't want to just give their money away, but that seems like a reasonable assumption.

      As far as the last couple sets go, I know what they've been exploring, that was a key component of what I was saying. Let me be emphatically clear here, once again...firstly, this is all just my own personal opinion, I in no way think people need to agree with me. I just value interesting discussion, and incidentally, seem to have found an interesting person to discuss with. So, my compliments. Secondly, though, I'm not saying that it needs to be all tribal or all war all the time or anything of the sort, far from it. If anything, Hex seems EXTREMELY suited to making mini-sets, tightly themed micro-expansions some various games do. The world is diverse and odd enough that it would work really really well. The point I'm making is merely that no one would like Lord of the Rings if it stopped midway through the series to describe Hobbit life for three books straight without even a single word about the ring, the Fellowship, or anything else going on. All I'm saying is just a couple cards in each set tying back to the overall world would have been nice. Nothing dramatic, just a quick glance to see what's going on outside. That's really all it would take to shut me up on this. :) As far as the new sets go, I haven't liked them personally, but I've been playing card games practically since the genre was invented. I've played nearly every card game ever created. Trust me, I'm well aware there will always be sets someone doesn't enjoy. Not worried about that at all.

      Finally, I agree on the last point, and again again, I've made no secret of the fact that I'm well aware that this is my own opinion, and not something I feel anyone is obligated to agree with or adhere to. I don't like this mode. No big deal. Other people do. I would say, "No big deal" to that as well, but scratch that. That IS a big deal. I am downright delighted that there's a new mode that people enjoy. Great! More people enjoying more of Hex can only be a good thing. Awesome stuff. But hey, what's the point of a thread like this if not to discuss one's personal opinions? My position was merely an observation that from where I'm sitting, yes, I've said this mode IS PvE, but that it's been taking PvP hormones, dressing like PVP, and has a mode reassignment surgery scheduled, which is a major contributor to why I don't like it personally, but again again again, that's just me discussing me.
    • 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.
    • New

      Foxhold wrote:

      Dynamic is a relative concept. No AI is dynamic; they all operate off of programming. A typical component of playing against an AI is learning how it's programmed, and then exploiting that. This isn't entirely unlike a player, where you can learn how they react to various things, but it's still far more formulaic. At the end of the day this component of it is inescapable.
      In that respect Siege would be static, as you are still playing against the AI and can exploit the flaws in it's play style regardless of what deck it is running.

      Foxhold wrote:

      If anything, Hex seems EXTREMELY suited to making mini-sets, tightly themed micro-expansions some various games do. The world is diverse and odd enough that it would work really really well. The point I'm making is merely that no one would like Lord of the Rings if it stopped midway through the series to describe Hobbit life for three books straight without even a single word about the ring, the Fellowship, or anything else going on. All I'm saying is just a couple cards in each set tying back to the overall world would have been nice. Nothing dramatic, just a quick glance to see what's going on outside. That's really all it would take to shut me up on this. :) As far as the new sets go, I haven't liked them personally, but I've been playing card games practically since the genre was invented. I've played nearly every card game ever created. Trust me, I'm well aware there will always be sets someone doesn't enjoy. Not worried about that at all.
      I'll give you that a few "meanwhile, over here dudes are still fightening" nods would be appropriate, but don't expect a straight forward good vs evil plot. The way the game is built it makes it so the good guys can never dunk the ring in mount doom and defeat the evils, as the people currently playing the evils in campaign will have hypothetical issues with this. The plot has to go off and find a threat of mutual concern that they can each beat up while still continuing their epic good vs evil showdown; generally the omnicidal crazy.
      Basically, our protagonists, in the loosest sense, haven't actually met the villain yet, which is what I think the frostheart story may be working it's way towards, or not, time will tell.

      Foxhold wrote:

      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.
      The bottom end of the monetization on Siege is nearly zero cost actually; for the defender it costs 1000 Gold minimum minus the instant rebate of 200 gold from first attacker for a total of 800 gold or 800/235(the BCB current exchange rate)=approx. 3.4 plat in the worst case scenario. The attacker is spending 400 gold or approx. 1.7 plat if he loses. The attacker could do one GMG run and use the gold to occupy himself for several hours on low end Sieges, which I'm sure there will be several of(it's my plan for this content anyways), and that's only if he's constantly losing. The bottom end might not be free, but it's pretty damned close.