Siege mode review and discussion thread

    • Very cool idea and great to see some more PvE added to Hex!

      In the future I would like this mode to be expanded so we can use our PvE Characters. Preferably in both attack and defense. I like the idea of my PvE Character being challenged by others. Not sure why we can't do that in a casual PvP format already.
    • TheBlackCrypt wrote:

      Transience wrote:

      Mach wrote:

      Transience wrote:

      Hex does have a learning AI. There's an article on that somewhere.

      edit: here it is: motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/8q8x7g/hex-tcg-ai
      Does the AI described in that article seem like the AI that's actually there right now? I suspect that much of that was either scrapped or ended up not actually having a significant effect on the AI's behavior.
      Why would they scrap it?There are obviously some problems with AI behavior that appear unaffected by it's learning behavior but that doesn't mean it doesn't work at all.

      I don't have much other experience with AI TCG players but to me it seems the AI is pretty fucking decent already.
      Put those tunneling dwarves in your deck that allow you to view the opponents hand and do a few runs of FRA, you will soon learn how not decent the AI really is which is why, just like the FRA champions, the AI playing your premade decks will need all the help they can get. The thing I would like HXE to take away from this announcement is that not one person so far has asked for a release date and posting this sort of information is exactly what they should be doing more of, not the complete opposite.

      Just let us know how much money you're making beating that not so decent AI next month.
      "Ignorant beliefs are stains upon the mind."
    • I absolutely love this idea, but I feel like this mode is definitely going to need a free (or nearly free) option, at least to help it get started. Advantages of having a free mode

      - Defenders can test their defenses and get a feel for how many people are beating their decks before they have to start wagering money on it. Even if you start by wagering a small amount of money, you only get one loss before you have to wager more. By having a free mode, you can see that you're currently winning 40% of matches or whatever.
      - Attackers can test their attacks. Especially for players that don't have a sense of just how powerful some the PVE cards/equipment are, I think there is going to be a lot of negative feeling when they first get a taste of it (especially PS4 players). It is bad enough to experience this without gaining anything, but actually losing money to experience it doubles the hurt.
      - Defenders are free to create "fun" content. You can do things like create themed sieges that while they may not be the strongest, they provide a unique and interesting experience for the players. Think of it like a player create FRA.
      - Free sieges don't have to disappear when they lose. I'm concerned that early on there will be a lack of people willing to wager money on their defenses, and this will be compounded by the fact that a losing siege is disabled at least temporarily. Free sieges mean that there will always be some available for people to play, even if nobody has been willing to wager recently.

      I'd love to see a "thumbs up" or something approach that allows people to indicate which free sieges they enjoyed, so that we can have leaderboards for the most fun sieges, but even without that I think allowing free sieges is going to be crucial to success.
    • It appears that one has to manually deposit currency in their keep every time it is raided.
      This is my primary concern: How many people will actively restock there keeps once they had multiple negative experiences of losing all they deposited?
      With the launch there will certainly be plenty of people stocking up their keeps to try out the new mechanic, but how does it look like half a year from here?
      Especially those that can't afford a defense strong enough to last longer than a few hours will lose all incentive to restock it.


      I would suggest some mechanics to counteract this and encourage players to "gamble".

      1.) All PvE/PvP earnings have a 5-10% bonus pooled into the Siege-minigame:
      This pool can be used to pay into your keep or to pay the fine for raiding other keeps!
      This would solve two problems:
      • People who lost a few times will not have any incentive to deposit gold in their keep.
      • People who do not have a lot of gold will rather play it save than attempt some keep they don't know how difficult it will be.


      Take note, those additional earnings can solely be used for the Siege-minigame,
      thus helps people to get a foothold in the keep siege an ultimately encourages them to continue and spend their own earnings for true profits.


      2.) Non-Currency rewards for winners and losers:
      As others have stated, there should be something in for both parties, winners and losers.
      Adventure Zone and Frostring Arena both give you plenty of reward even if you fail after the first encounter.
      Since this system appears to be designed to drain some currency, possibly rewarding Chests could further enhance this.


      3.) Excessive management of your keep:
      Consider the scenario of a player/bot watching their keep 24/7.
      Whenever someone fails to their keep they withdraw the entire currency that is deposited on their keep.
      Now, they can make the conscious decision whether they want to:
      • Deposit 100% of the gains into their keep for faster growth.
      • Play by the rules and deposit 37.5% of the gains like the system usually would.
      • Withdraw all gains to secure their prize.
      This should NOT be something exclusively available to people/bots monitoring the Siege-minigame.
      The solution here would be a slider that allows you to determine how much you want to invest or withdraw.
      If the slider has a minimum of 5% rather than 37.5% investment, there is little incentive to try to "bypass" the system with constant monitoring.
      And people really fond of their keep and enjoying the system can deposit 100% of their earnings.
      This would give more control to the Player and feel less like Gambling.

      4.) Reward risky play for the defender:
      With the system presented above, you might want to encourage the defender to invest all of the attackers expenses.
      The current fixed settings for someone successfully defending:
      • - 50% is put the players purse
      • - 37.5% is put into the keeps growth
      • - 12.5% is lost to taxes
      With the customizable system above, we could do the following:
      A Player wants to play it save:
      • - 75% is put into their purse
      • - 0% is invested into their keep
      • - 25% is lost to taxes
      A Player wants to play risky:
      • - 0% is put into their purse
      • - 95% is invested into their keep
      • - 5% is lost to taxes
      Mind you, a bot or very active player could still abuse the latter,
      but again, there is less incentive to bother with that if you can just reap your 75% safely.
      (If the fee to attack the castle is added to its value regardless whether it falls or not, then above numbers might need tweaking.)

      5.) Reward risky play for the attacker:
      The same as Above could be applied to the attacker.
      Allow mutators, handicaps imparted onto yourself when raiding a Keep (e.g. +1 cost, opponent starts with xyz,...).
      Should the player succeed, they would get some additional non-currency rewards.
    • Vroengard wrote:

      Bootlace wrote:

      your seemingly invincible defense being defeated with no idea why you lost
      I'm worried about that as well, I think that this mode demands a post-game report to the Keep owners or at the very least the decklist that defeated it.
      Yeah, I was saying that a replay system to watch matches against your keep is kind of crucial, but at the very least we should get a deck list of what beat us. Having your keep fall with no idea if it was just the deck your opponent was playing, or if they just got lucky and drew the nut, or if your deck just suffered screw/flood, or what exactly, would be frustrating. Hard to make changes if you don't know what happened
    • Would removing the minimum limit make a difference?
      Players pay nothing, but also gain nothing. But does give the option to more attackers to test the keep, after it has been defeated but not yet restocked.
      Furthermore, it allows keep owners to build 'fun decks'. What is the point of building a fun deck if its demolished within minutes and you lost gold while only 1 player could enjoy it?


      As a player with limited gold/platinum I probably will not attack another keep unless I am fairly confident I can beat it. If the majority thinks like that, the keep owners would be losing significant amounts of currency if they place substantial rewards. Thus, I would expect to find massive lists of keeps all at price floor of 1000 gold.


      edit: i really liked what Tyrant wrote above: Playing PvE increases the prize pool of your own keep, BUT you can not empty it yourself.


      edit2: there used to exist a game 'the mighty quest for epic loot' from Ubisoft, was highly anticipated, but failed hard. Please don't make the same mistakes as they did.

      The post was edited 4 times, last by Frasaria ().

    • Will the client inform you which player managed to defeat your keep? I could see that being an unofficial way for folks to send additional prizes if that's the case--setting up a sort of 'friendly theme defenders' unofficial group on the forums, aggregating a list of defenders with fun puzzle keeps and then doling out prizes / getting together some post-play action reports from attackers, etc. It's very much a framework where we can make our own fun, too.

      I've personally got a mountain of cards, equipment and mercs I'd obligingly put up into prize pools.
    • New

      Q: Who are going to attack a stronghold with 1000g after the first week??

      Reward: 1000g - 400g attack cost + 150 (attack cost that increased reward) = 750g.

      Even if I win I just get 750g per 20-30 min!!

      So stronghold need a bit better rewards:
      Imo attecked and defenders who WIN should also get a ticket to a giftshop.

      Giftshop sell:
      5 ticket an AA PvP - C
      10 ticket an AA PvP - UC
      25 ticket an AA PvP - R
      50 ticket an AA PvP - L
    • New

      KozHex wrote:

      Am I understanding it correctly and you can only be defending or attacking at any given time? So you can't have a keep up for defense while also attacking other people's keeps?
      I didn't see anything in the article that suggests that you cannot attack and defend at the same time. Your keep can only be attacked by one player at a time and you cannot take your keep down while someone is already attacking it, but it looks like you can attack other keeps while your keep is being attacked.
    • New

      wihtout having thought this through properly, what would happen if hex put up the minimum gold hoard. so a "free" siege is a 1000g keep, that only costs for the attacker. additional bounty can be put on top and possibly bring down the attack fee slightly?

      its hard to get away from the fact that as a gold grind it will likely be much better to play campaign, to offset that slightly putting some gold into it could help.

      the other solution would be to have a leaderboard with interesting prizes that incentives both attacking and defending well (two different ones?)
    • New

      Transience wrote:

      TheBlackCrypt wrote:

      Put those tunneling dwarves in your deck that allow you to view the opponents hand and do a few runs of FRA, you will soon learn how not decent the AI really is which is why, just like the FRA champions, the AI playing your premade decks will need all the help they can get. The thing I would like HXE to take away from this announcement is that not one person so far has asked for a release date and posting this sort of information is exactly what they should be doing more of, not the complete opposite.
      Just let us know how much money you're making beating that not so decent AI next month.
      I won't be making any gold/plat as I have very few standard legal cards and have no intention of obtaining any for this mode of play until the day comes where PVE cards and equipment is legal for attackers. I am somewhat interested in the defense side but the successful decks that are made for defense will be tailored to the AI and it's inability to play the game property, there's no getting around that at this stage of development. If in future the AI improves then I would expect the defense side of Sieges will become quite challenging.
    • New

      The video recording of yesterday's stream can be found here.

      One quick comment for those who want to have a "free" Siege mode. The minimum price of 1000 gold asks for 400 gold to try it. It is literally 1 or 2 fights in the campaign and amounts to less than 2 cent of real currency. The only step bellow that is free so for all intent and purposes I think it is fine for the low end.

      I've see a lot of great constructive comments in here and I'll have to review @'NicoSharp''s stream from today that also reviewed the news. Nico if you have a link to your archive don't hesitate to post it!

      I think that with all of these comments we likely are on the right track. Also, it is still important to consider that we do not have all details about the Siege mode yet. Many things are yet to be revealed and I would not be surprised to see that a good portion of it is already in the work if not completed: particularly comments regarding having ways to "tune" the AI for each decks.
      @Twitch - @Twitter - @Youtube

      "A Gall's fortune is sometimes good and sometimes bad, but always true."
    • New

      Transience wrote:

      Well I guess your definition of 'decent AI' and mine differ.

      I'm not sure why you're even playing a game that you think is bad but whatever, your life. I'll happily continue getting my butt kicked by the game.
      Hex is far from bad (it's lacking features), I have played it almost daily since alpha (80% FRA 1/2) until recently but the AI needs a whole lot of work before it's decent imo, as I said, make a s/? deck with the tunnelers and observe some of the decisions the AI makes, questionable in many cases and just plain stoopid in others. Cory has said himself the AI will never be as intelligent as a human player and it needs work.

      decent
      ˈdiːs(ə)nt/
      adjective
      1. 1.conforming with generally accepted standards of respectable or moral behaviour."a decent clean-living individual"
      2. 2.of an acceptable standard; satisfactory.
      Yep, we have differing opinions and the above doesn't help :)
    • New

      So the quality of the AI isn't acceptable or satisfactory to you yet you're still playing.

      Sure.

      Also; you can beat on those tunnelers as much as you want but no one, certainly not me, is saying that the AI doesn't make stupid decisions or doesn't need work. All I'm saying is that it is decent. If it wasn't decent, thus acceptable or satisfactory, to me or anyone else, the PVE side of this game would not be played by anyone.

      Well, except by you apparently.
      "Ignorant beliefs are stains upon the mind."
    • New

      Transience wrote:

      So the quality of the AI isn't acceptable or satisfactory to you yet you're still playing.

      Sure.

      Also; you can beat on those tunnelers as much as you want but no one, certainly not me, is saying that the AI doesn't make stupid decisions or doesn't need work. All I'm saying is that it is decent. If it wasn't decent, thus acceptable or satisfactory, to me or anyone else, the PVE side of this game would not be played by anyone.

      Well, except by you apparently.
      Up until recently I was still playing yes because despite the unacceptable and unsatisfactory behavior of the AI I still enjoy brewing decks and trying out new cards/equip combinations. And, like so many other here, you are making assumptions for others based upon your own opinions....the AI isn't great yet many people, like myself, still play the PVE side of the game. I guess it's a case of the good out weighting the bad, much like these forums really. Perhaps my expectations are just higher than yours?

      EDIT: Have a look at some of the posts on page 6, I guess I aren't the only one with higher expectations.

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

    • New

      CoachFliperon wrote:

      The video recording of yesterday's stream can be found here.

      One quick comment for those who want to have a "free" Siege mode. The minimum price of 1000 gold asks for 400 gold to try it. It is literally 1 or 2 fights in the campaign and amounts to less than 2 cent of real currency. The only step bellow that is free so for all intent and purposes I think it is fine for the low end.

      I've see a lot of great constructive comments in here and I'll have to review @'NicoSharp''s stream from today that also reviewed the news. Nico if you have a link to your archive don't hesitate to post it!

      I think that with all of these comments we likely are on the right track. Also, it is still important to consider that we do not have all details about the Siege mode yet. Many things are yet to be revealed and I would not be surprised to see that a good portion of it is already in the work if not completed: particularly comments regarding having ways to "tune" the AI for each decks.


      Will try to get a Siege Article to Dino to see if we can get a strategy article main site too. I think this news rustled my hibernation a bit.