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

    • Firellius wrote:

      Eraia wrote:

      CoachFliperon wrote:

      Acorns should not be allowed in Siege period
      Acorns shouldn't be allowed in anything intended as competitive or end-game. They literally break the game.@Pandaemonium Agreed - repeatable content is definitely what this needs. Repeatable content for all skill levels that is rewarding.

      Sadly, Hex hasn't yet figured out how to do that. Hopefully soon. But for now, Siege is a cool addition that'll certainly give the top end of the PvE player spectrum something to do. And anything that makes PvE more appealing for anyone is a step in the right direction IMO... regardless of my personal interest in the game mode.
      I keep saying: It's a shame that Siege was set up as a gold sink, rather than a gold gain. If the bounties for the sieges were paid out by the game rather than the player, this would be everything PvE could ever want: Endlessly repeatable content, millions of new encounters.
      I honestly think it can be both all you need is unlockables for gold for the defender a lot of people enjoy that kind of stuff. Its not too late for it to change or be modified to have a alternative mode that is a gold gain either so don't give up hope.
    • Wolzarg wrote:

      Firellius wrote:

      Eraia wrote:

      CoachFliperon wrote:

      Acorns should not be allowed in Siege period
      Acorns shouldn't be allowed in anything intended as competitive or end-game. They literally break the game.@Pandaemonium Agreed - repeatable content is definitely what this needs. Repeatable content for all skill levels that is rewarding.
      Sadly, Hex hasn't yet figured out how to do that. Hopefully soon. But for now, Siege is a cool addition that'll certainly give the top end of the PvE player spectrum something to do. And anything that makes PvE more appealing for anyone is a step in the right direction IMO... regardless of my personal interest in the game mode.
      I keep saying: It's a shame that Siege was set up as a gold sink, rather than a gold gain. If the bounties for the sieges were paid out by the game rather than the player, this would be everything PvE could ever want: Endlessly repeatable content, millions of new encounters.
      I honestly think it can be both all you need is unlockables for gold for the defender a lot of people enjoy that kind of stuff. Its not too late for it to change or be modified to have a alternative mode that is a gold gain either so don't give up hope.
      That would be the ultimate ideal though: Gold keeps could be set up as a source of income which favours the attacking side, whereas Platinum keeps could be set up to favour the defense side and have a more balanced, PvP oriented approach.

      Gold keeps: Allow champions for defense, allow campaign characters and mercs for offense. Bounty is set and paid by the game, based off the number of uncommon, rare and legendary cards in the deck, and the level/rarity of the character/merc. Defending player earns a minute quantity of gold when their keep is challenged, and a large quantity of gold if their keep defeats the attacker.

      Plat keeps: Allow campaign characters and mercs for defense, champions for offense. Bounty is set and paid by the player. Attacking player pays a percentage of the bounty to the defending player, with a portion of that payment going into the bounty. Winner takes the entire bounty.
    • Vroengard wrote:

      Bootlace wrote:

      Vroengard wrote:

      Bootlace wrote:

      High plat entry keeps are all going to have 12x Acorns and going to make the high end competitive sieges unplayable from an attacker point of view.
      I fail to see how exactly this is bad.People won't be playing those so they won't be losing anything. And the keep builders will have to lower the stakes.
      This system is great because it is self-regulatory. I can make a 300000 plat Keep, oh, great I'm awesome, look at me... aaaand it's never gonna get challenged and I will get nothing from it.

      Or I go the other way, I post something from minimum 50 plat but jam in 12 Acorns, 12 of each slaughtergear, 12 Triolith etc. In less than a week my name's out in the forums and everyone avoids my troll builds.
      If a segment of what the game mode is suppose to allow is made defunct, then either the original idea of having high-stakes plat sieges is bad or the fact that Acorns make that unplayable is bad.Put another way, what's the point of having this be a high stakes competitive mode, if Acorns skew the balance to a point where you can't really balance the two (since balancing with acorn vs no-acorns is a different story). And if we don't have high stakes competitive mode, is it still worth all the downside of sieges currently (not-asynch, content gets delisted upon defeat, can't be played by more than one person at a time, disincentive to create fun sieges etc) just to allow some meager gold bounties.

      Also why is making the most competitive Siege deck considered a 'troll build', that essentially means the mode is poorly designed if a person trying to maximize their chances in a competitive mode is labeled a troll and blacklisted on forums for doing what they're suppose to do.
      1) It's not made defunct, it's being adjusted to exactly how much players are willing to risk. You said "high plat entry keeps are going to have 12 Acorns. I said People are not gonna play vs those high plat entry > y plat with 12 Acorns, but will be willing to play against the high plat entry < y plat with 12 Acorns because Acorns can be beat x% of the time.
      2) Read again, I said "troll build" the situation where the three decks' power would warrant a very high hoard, but the builder put it very low so as to lure people to play it and instead of making the occassional big bank, he is making more and more often smaller ones.
      You're creating your own rules for what people should deem troll builds, and what's a suitable bounty to match a deck's power level. If you think a forum witch hunt started by individuals is a good arbitrator of that and serves as a good way to self-balance this mode then I don't know what to tell you. It's not up to you or anyone to say player x shouldn't put bounty y because their deck power is level z. I'm fine with the in-game Siege mode displaying data that'll help players make such decisions (# of Acorns in Siege, number of 1-and-done retreats of Siege owner, average plat price of siege decks based on AH avg data etc) but telling people on forums to blacklist a certain siege because you didn't feel their bounty/power ratio wasn't adequate is ridiculous and frankly probably the last thing a Hex forums needs.

      Trying to reiterate back to original point, plat bounties are suppose to be one of the cool aspects of this competitive mode. As I've mentioned numerous times, there's a price to pay (in more ways than one ) for making this a competitive mode over say an archive mode where we can enjoy endless sieges rated according to certain criteria without hurdles to creating & playing against a siege. If Acorns make this competitive mode so clunky that you have to visit a forum and check a person's history whether they've used Acorns (like some stereoids cheat in sports) before you consider taking them on..then maybe those Acorns aren't worth being there in the first place in the current setting.
    • Firellius wrote:

      Gold keeps: Allow champions for defense, allow campaign characters and mercs for offense. Bounty is set and paid by the game, based off the number of uncommon, rare and legendary cards in the deck, and the level/rarity of the character/merc. Defending player earns a minute quantity of gold when their keep is challenged, and a large quantity of gold if their keep defeats the attacker.

      It's a neat idea in theory, the problem is that it would be too easy to abuse by setting up easily-defeated keeps on 2nd account and just farming it for wins and quick gold over and over. They probably thought of this exact thing and rejected it, sticking with the net-gain-for-them method instead so the system wouldn't be abused.

      It is a shame though, because this mode doesn't generate any value whatsoever, it just takes it from the hands of the greedy, incompetent, or inexperienced and gives it to the sharks. That's how PVP tournaments are supposed to function, not the PVE side of the game. ;)
      --ossuary

      "Love all, trust a few, do wrong to none."
      - Shakespeare, All's Well That Ends Well
    • Ossuary wrote:

      Firellius wrote:

      Gold keeps: Allow champions for defense, allow campaign characters and mercs for offense. Bounty is set and paid by the game, based off the number of uncommon, rare and legendary cards in the deck, and the level/rarity of the character/merc. Defending player earns a minute quantity of gold when their keep is challenged, and a large quantity of gold if their keep defeats the attacker.
      It's a neat idea in theory, the problem is that it would be too easy to abuse by setting up easily-defeated keeps on 2nd account and just farming it for wins and quick gold over and over. They probably thought of this exact thing and rejected it, sticking with the net-gain-for-them method instead so the system wouldn't be abused.

      It is a shame though, because this mode doesn't generate any value whatsoever, it just takes it from the hands of the greedy, incompetent, or inexperienced and gives it to the sharks. That's how PVP tournaments are supposed to function, not the PVE side of the game. ;)
      To be fair, this is what makes them money, which is what has been a problem with PvE for them, that it has not generated them any money in itself. I am not so petty that I think that they should only create content they will not earn any money from for PvE, they need to gain something out of it. :)
    • I don't begrudge it to them either, in fact I would prefer they DID have a way to properly monetize PVE, in a way that's easy to track, so they can see how much support it really has (directly, as opposed to all the indirect ways PVE players currently buy into the game that can't be easily proven). But they could do that by having things like cosmetic unlockables and leveling up your keep in various ways, while still potentially allowing the base mode itself to generate player income without it coming directly from other players' pockets at a net loss in the process. Or like Relux said, there could be card / equipment / AA rewards tied to the mode as well, which would generate value for players when they sell them on (and also incidentally further profit CZE in the form of AH fees).

      There are plenty of ways it could be done, if you solve the abuse factor. Sure, having players lose their own money if their defense is beaten / they spam losses to a keep to grow its contents prevents anyone from farming for gold, but it also makes the mode overall less appealing to casual players. It is currently extremely tedious to farm gold from all the available methods, and there is no repeatable content. Siege was an opportunity to have repeatable, dynamic PVE content that CZE didn't have to spend time building encounters themselves for, but now it can never be that, because use of the system is a net loss to the players overall. So its ultimate use will be relegated to only sharks and newbies / inexperienced players.
      --ossuary

      "Love all, trust a few, do wrong to none."
      - Shakespeare, All's Well That Ends Well
    • Ossuary wrote:

      Firellius wrote:

      Gold keeps: Allow champions for defense, allow campaign characters and mercs for offense. Bounty is set and paid by the game, based off the number of uncommon, rare and legendary cards in the deck, and the level/rarity of the character/merc. Defending player earns a minute quantity of gold when their keep is challenged, and a large quantity of gold if their keep defeats the attacker.
      It's a neat idea in theory, the problem is that it would be too easy to abuse by setting up easily-defeated keeps on 2nd account and just farming it for wins and quick gold over and over. They probably thought of this exact thing and rejected it, sticking with the net-gain-for-them method instead so the system wouldn't be abused.

      It is a shame though, because this mode doesn't generate any value whatsoever, it just takes it from the hands of the greedy, incompetent, or inexperienced and gives it to the sharks. That's how PVP tournaments are supposed to function, not the PVE side of the game. ;)
      Gems of War fixes this by matchmaking you. Instead of just getting your pick of whatever opponent you want, you are presented with three choices of varying value and difficulty level, and you have to pay to get new options.

      HEX could do the same thing.
    • Firellius wrote:

      I keep saying: It's a shame that Siege was set up as a gold sink, rather than a gold gain. If the bounties for the sieges were paid out by the game rather than the player, this would be everything PvE could ever want: Endlessly repeatable content, millions of new encounters.
      Eh, I don't know that it would've appealed to me either way... but it certainly would've had wider appeal and been less of a 'place for the sharks only' if that was the case.

      It feels like at this point Hex is only designing pve for the elite. Siege, for the elite. Arena, redesigned to be for the elite. Campaign... forgotten. They seem to forget that you need to give players content between 'Oh this game seems interesting' and 'I have every card in the game, what do I do now?'
      Gamer. Streamer. Photographer. Writer. Anime Lover. Possessor of Stuffed Animals.

      Also... I'm terrible at this game.
    • @Bootlace I get the feeling you're just being a contrarian because you're talking to me, as you always appear to be misunderstanding my posts. Anyway, here's one more:

      What you call a "witch hunt" is something that has both been done elsewhere with great success (from the top of my mind, Neverwinter MMO) and also asked for here for Siege. It is the ability to leave a comment and award x/5 stars after playing a Keep.

      And obviously it's not what *I* evaluate the correct hoard to be for a Siege, it's what the majority thinks. Basically, how the AH works in a free market. And I 100% believe that this will be a good way to self-balance the mode.

      So how about you stop making to about me and instead talk about the subject I present?
    • Vroengard wrote:

      @Bootlace I get the feeling you're just being a contrarian because you're talking to me, as you always appear to be misunderstanding my posts. Anyway, here's one more:

      ....

      So how about you stop making to about me and instead talk about the subject I present?
      I have no idea what you're referring to. May I remind you my interaction with you started when you thought it wouldn't be a problem if Acorns skews everything on the competitive side because you thought the forums would balance things out....which I've pointed out from multiple angles why it's a poor idea/solution to the problem.


      Vroengard wrote:


      ...It is the ability to leave a comment and award x/5 stars after playing a Keep.
      Rating a non-static Keep is pretty meaningless, especially under the scenarios which we're discussing.


      Vroengard wrote:

      Basically, how the AH works in a free market
      AH works because all parties have direct access to all pertinent information. Sieges have a clear lack of vital information in terms of Acorn/non-Acorn use.