Siege mode review and discussion thread

    • New

      Eraia wrote:

      The lack of any form of rng in the rewards.
      I think this is something everyone should avoid. Gambling the reward after painstakingly working for it is unappealing to everyone. What you mean to say, I guess, is that "part" of the reward could be random. Or that the reward could include a "bonus" that would be random. Exactly how chests are NOT the reward for buying booster packs. You buy booster packs in order to get cards of a set and they have the additional random chest with random rewards inside.

      ReluxTheRelux wrote:

      Firellius wrote:

      If this is moderately doable for the defending side, that means that attackers should be balanced to have a 75% loss rate.
      Actually the attackers need at least a 60% on average win rate, because they need to win 3 games in row at least once every 3 sieges to break somewhat even.
      siege 1 - loss on game 1 (pays 40%)
      siege 2 - loss on game 1 (pay 40%, now 80%total)
      siege 3 - wins 3 games (pays 40%, wins 100%, ends up -20% total)

      that is in a optimal case where the loss happens in the first game.
      It's slighty worse than that. You forget that 37.5% of the 40% fee goes STRAIGHT INTO THE HOARD, which means that next time you don't pay 40% of the initial hoard, you pay 40% of the increased hoard. Cumulatively.
    • New

      Vroengard wrote:

      I think this is something everyone should avoid. Gambling the reward after painstakingly working for it is unappealing to everyone. What you mean to say, I guess, is that "part" of the reward could be random. Or that the reward could include a "bonus" that would be random. Exactly how chests are NOT the reward for buying booster packs. You buy booster packs in order to get cards of a set and they have the additional random chest with random rewards inside.
      That is precisely what I meant. Yep. The bounty is the primary goal, but you get additionals for participation. Possibly even tied to an 'every 3 game wins(not match wins), you get one random grab bag of rewards'...
      Gamer. Streamer. Photographer. Writer. Anime Lover. Possessor of Stuffed Animals.

      Also... I'm terrible at this game.
    • New

      Vroengard wrote:

      ReluxTheRelux wrote:

      Firellius wrote:

      If this is moderately doable for the defending side, that means that attackers should be balanced to have a 75% loss rate.
      Actually the attackers need at least a 60% on average win rate, because they need to win 3 games in row at least once every 3 sieges to break somewhat even.siege 1 - loss on game 1 (pays 40%)
      siege 2 - loss on game 1 (pay 40%, now 80%total)
      siege 3 - wins 3 games (pays 40%, wins 100%, ends up -20% total)

      that is in a optimal case where the loss happens in the first game.
      It's slighty worse than that. You forget that 37.5% of the 40% fee goes STRAIGHT INTO THE HOARD, which means that next time you don't pay 40% of the initial hoard, you pay 40% of the increased hoard. Cumulatively.
      My assumptions are assuming same hoard size becaus eone would also over time attack various hoard so that there would be a average hoard size which youw oud attack.
      HEX forums resident liker.
    • New

      If we're critiquing Relux' math, you missed the biggest part: If it costs you 400 to siege a keep, you win 1150 gold if you're victorious, not 1000, because entering increased the prize by 150 gold.

      And following up on the specific scenario of raiding a specific keep repeatedly: if you're considering the increase in gold, the first entry costs 400, the second costs 460, and the third costs 529, but when you win, you win 1520, while you only paid 1389. So no. It's not slightly worse than what Relux was saying. It's quite a bit better as instead of being down 200 gold when you paid 1200, you're up 131 when you paid 1389.