Friday Update - Ohhh Yeaah!

    • Eternal wrote:

      If Siege gets big enough, hopefully CZE can allow the defender to stick to the deck restrictions inside the client for defense, thus limiting the attacker as well. Having a Rock Siege league could be really cool. Restrictions could really help out the new or casual player.

      The big trouble with this is of course equipment can sometimes make a common card OP. I haven't really paid any attention to the rarity of that equipment though, so maybe it would work out.
      I would agree with this also; had to read through all of the posts to see if this had been mentioned yet. A feature that allows you to restrict the attacker's deck to a specific format (amount of equipment if any, champions / mercenaries allowed, etc.) would be great. This would allow you to promote new player friendly Sieges or the content such as @Thrawn is doing for example.
    • Eraia wrote:

      Greyhaven wrote:

      There are no prizes and no big surprises, but it effectively gives players a fairly customizable sandbox to play in absolutely free. If a new player is struggling against the FRA or a campaign match, or just wants to test their favorite new theme deck against a gauntlet of AI decks that cater to specific challenges, they will now have the tools to do that.

      That may be the accidental big winner of this new system, and it is totally accessible to new players and small collections.
      I feel like you're underestimating how big of an impct 'no reward' will have on that particular concept...
      I do not. A lot of the most popular board games now come with solo variants, for this reason. There is a large portion of people that buy games to play solo. This is now what we have, a sandbox of challenges that a player can make. There are at least three-four people that enjoy solo variants that buy at my local gaming shop.

      Additionally, a player can just set the decks to standard meta decks and playtest 24/7 by themselves.

      The general idea is super casual friendly and caters to a whole new level of dedicated players and opens up a whole new avenue of play. Imagine a streamer making specific decks that the community comes up with and piloting a deck through it. The amount of replayability is endless.

      The only thing lacking is guilds and a way to have guild keep challenges with a set playerbase for bragging rights among friends, etc. Which I imagine will be in a later patch.
    • Biz wrote:

      part of the appeal of PVE is having a mode where the AI can lose more often so that the humans can win more often. that's not possible in PVP, which is zero-sum

      the siege mode seems okay, but it seems set up so that the AI has to survive 5 assaults in a row before the defender breaks even.

      personally, i'm fine with a challenge, but do PVE players really want the mode to only be fair if the AI is winning a lot?
      Actually you only need to defend vs 4 attackers to break even, because of the increasing hoard.

      With 1000 investment you get 200 for the first win & 150 added to the hoard (now 1150).

      For the 2nd win you get 230 (total so far 430) with 173 added to the hoard (now 1323).

      For the 3rd win you get 265 (total so far 695) with 199 added to the hoard (now 1522). Note that if you cash out at this point you have already more than doubled your investment, as you get 695+1522=2217.

      For the 4th win you get 305 (total so far 1000) with 229 added to the hoard (now 1751). So at this point, even if you lose the next one you have got your money back, and any further wins are profit. If you cash out you'll have 1000+1751=2751; even better!
    • I didnt read the last 7 pages (although I probably will do later)...that just as a disclaimer.


      Now..

      I do like it. The potential is huge (player created content; time-sink; real challenge). The potential for design pitfalls and unintended consequences is as well.

      Some quick notes:
      - This actually lets me test constructed decks against the AI (small thing...but noteworthy).
      - 40% seems high. If the hoard gets big less and less people will try it and you probably withdraw and start low again.
      - Hence it seems like a good currency intake option for people with sufficient pve collection (nothing wrong with that though).
      - My biggest concern is about longterm stability of such a system. After a month or two people might realize that winning a gauntlet actually indeed is super hard and maybe stop trying.
      - To make it easier for the challenger there maybe should be a test-run option (you dont have to pay and cant win anything).
      - The smart move might be to start with a low hoard and reset as often as possible. Alternatively you start big and hope to find people who dont really care about likely losing money (aka whales).
      - I assume acorns used by the AI transform. So the next challenger plays against squirrels. Best gauntlets contain acorns. Seems like serious micro management work to keep up with them as the gauntlet owner.
      - This has the potential to be a frustrating gamble experience instead of an engaging challenge experience. You dont know what a given gauntlet holds for you. You make a bet with not even knowing the decks. Luck suddenly is a huge factor (especialy with big hoards).
      - This will drive both pve and standard card prices additionaly (mostly pve of course)
      - Making the challenge decks standard constructed is a smart move (drives card prizes and gives extra incentives for deck brewing and breaking the format). Also gives a level (or at least cheaper) playfield for new players.

      Suggestions (just throwing it out there...not sure myself if all suggestions actually are good ones):
      - To remove the big gamble aspect maybe do a cap on the hoard size.
      - Maybe significantly reduce the pay-in.
      - Find a way to handle acorns better (to reduce the micro management effort).

      Question:
      - Does the AI algorithm involve RNG ? I think I remember hearing that the AI decides between the 3 best options by using RNG (80% for the best option, 15% for the 2nd best option; 5% for the third best (and probably very bad) option). Something like that...is that actually the case?
      This would increase the gamble element significantly.

      - Give players a free run mode.
      I want to elaborate on this one:
      It reduces the frustration for challengers (and I think its still gonna be very hard for them).
      And more importantly you can have the time sink and challenge without having to pay up.
      I personaly am probably not paying in much since it seems to difficult. It most likely will end up being negative ev even when you think you are skilled.
      With big hoards it suddenly becomes a huge gamble (here hoping for the AI making a mistake or not finding card x by turn y).

      With a free run mode you give me a challenge. I like challenges.
      You can use this free run mode for leaderboards as well.
      Example:
      Nicosharp builds a gauntlet. 82 runs attempt and fail on that gauntlet (in free run mode).
      He has the highest undefeated streak on the leaderboard with that gauntlet.
      Now Swigmonkey comes and beats that gauntlet finally (after many attempts and with lots of brain storming and deck brewing and finally getting lucky).
      Swigmonkey would never have done this in a non free mode. Swigmonkey now gets recognized on the leaderboards (having beaten the longest undefeated gauntlet). Bother players streaks/accomplishments keep mesmerized on this eternal leaderboard.

      THIS would give me reason to play actually. And HXE could even make it much more interesting. After a while and after realising nicosharps gauntlet is really strong they add extra prizes for the one who finally beat his gauntlet.

      TL,DR:
      Huge potential. Details still need work.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Metronomy ().

    • Metronomy wrote:

      - 40% seems high. If the hoard gets big less and less people will try it and you probably withdraw and start low again.
      40% will deter Attackers from attacking super high hoards, which in turn will make Defenders lower their hoards, effectively putting a cap in hoards (that being whatever the Defender feel comfortable playing against). A Keep that is not being attacked is a dead weight that does nothing, doesn't offer bragging rights as it sits at 0 wins and doesn't increase your funds. The 40% tax is a detterent equally for the Defenders as much as for the Attackers.

      At the very least, it will be used to create different tiers of play. People with a lot of currency to spend usually have a big collection and stronger deck and will go against the stronger Keeps, who also wouldn't mind losing 1,000,000 or whatever.
    • Swigmonkey wrote:

      Eraia wrote:

      Greyhaven wrote:

      There are no prizes and no big surprises, but it effectively gives players a fairly customizable sandbox to play in absolutely free. If a new player is struggling against the FRA or a campaign match, or just wants to test their favorite new theme deck against a gauntlet of AI decks that cater to specific challenges, they will now have the tools to do that.

      That may be the accidental big winner of this new system, and it is totally accessible to new players and small collections.
      I feel like you're underestimating how big of an impct 'no reward' will have on that particular concept...
      I do not. A lot of the most popular board games now come with solo variants, for this reason. There is a large portion of people that buy games to play solo. This is now what we have, a sandbox of challenges that a player can make. There are at least three-four people that enjoy solo variants that buy at my local gaming shop.
      Additionally, a player can just set the decks to standard meta decks and playtest 24/7 by themselves.

      The general idea is super casual friendly and caters to a whole new level of dedicated players and opens up a whole new avenue of play. Imagine a streamer making specific decks that the community comes up with and piloting a deck through it. The amount of replayability is endless.

      The only thing lacking is guilds and a way to have guild keep challenges with a set playerbase for bragging rights among friends, etc. Which I imagine will be in a later patch.
      I'm not saying nobody will do it, I'm just saying that we're probably talking a small fraction of the population interested in the game will do it more than a few times... most people, when presented with option a that is slightly more fun than option b but has no reward... will pick option b the majority of the time.
      Gamer. Streamer. Photographer. Writer. Anime Lover. Possessor of Stuffed Animals.

      Also... I'm terrible at this game.
    • The Entry fee is going to be an issue.
      I already foresee the most lucrative strategy will be lowest gold entry siege set up, reset after 1 player loses = passive gold income.

      I retract my initial idea of starting with plat entry. I think low stakes is the way to go at least until there is more strategy backing standard legal decks that are destroying defenses.
    • NicoSharp wrote:

      The Entry fee is going to be an issue.
      I already foresee the most lucrative strategy will be lowest gold entry siege set up, reset after 1 player loses = passive gold income.

      I retract my initial idea of starting with plat entry. I think low stakes is the way to go at least until there is more strategy backing standard legal decks that are destroying defenses.

      Maybe making this like a gauthlet would be better and less abusable?

      1- Fix cost to set up your keep
      2- Fix cost to raid the keep
      3- Fixed reward sturcture similar to evo (the structure not the prizes) (5 wins or 3 losts)
    • New

      in a vacuum, i'm not seeing the difference between these two:
      • withdrawing your gauntlet and listing it again
      • leaving it running

      the optimal strategy just changes based on what the most skilled challengers look for (and how you want to dodge them). i think maybe there shouldn't be an option to back out unless nobody has challenged it within a certain amount of time
    • New

      Biz wrote:

      in a vacuum, i'm not seeing the difference between these two:
      • withdrawing your gauntlet and listing it again
      • leaving it running

      the optimal strategy just changes based on what the most skilled challengers look for (and how you want to dodge them). i think maybe there shouldn't be an option to back out unless nobody has challenged it within a certain amount of time
      If you let it running, the guy that lost the first match added to your hoard and so it bumped it above the minimum of 1000 and made it less appealing to potential attackers.

      Reseting it at 1000 is the way to masquerade how good it is.

      @NicoSharp I reckon we'll have posts with people rating and commenting on different people's Keeps. The sly ones with the tier 1 decks hiding behind 1,000 Gold hoards will be exposed and people will avoid them.

      The Neverwinter MMO and the Neverwinter Nights game allowed for players to make whole adventures inside the MMO and there was an ingame page with aggregiated scores and comments.