Siege died

    • Bizznach wrote:

      did we go from 'stupid AI popping all the acorns' to "OMG AI is smashing me with acorns?"
      or am i wrong?
      I agree here, so many people are saying AI is extremely bad not playing some cards, picking wrong thresholds etc etc.
      And now MtgCollector says acorns and/or equipment should be banned????
      Lets hope they fix AI before doing that.
    • simple example:

      you are making 3x decks with 4 acorns inside
      decks should be designed for high win rate if one acorn will be used (i know it looks hard but possibly)
      you are posting a keep with high gold inside for example 50-100k
      there is high chance that one of 3 decks will use acorn and win
      you get pretty nice bonus in gold
      you withdraw keep
      exchange squirel with acorn
      and start again

      acorn price is soooooo low right now that you can potentialy make more money on them by using in siege then selling.
    • TheBlackCrypt wrote:

      How ironic that PVE cards are more than likely being banned because PVP players are crying about facing them.

      Yet another reason why Siege isn't worth playing.

      Looking forward to raids/co-op, you know....proper PVE.
      they fixed the AI to pick the right threasholds, with Acorns the opponent now will ramp to 4-8 on their first turn, making it impossible to win, unless the AI doesn't draw a acorn.
      HEX forums resident liker.
    • The main problem is - people started to figure out what cards the AI is using correctly and adjusted their decks accordingly.
      The first day of Siege it was a walk in the park as attacker, but right now we are at the point where I don't feel like attacking much more at all.
      I do like myself a challenge but with the ante system we have right now it just feels really punishing to run into several insane curves in a row.
      I'm sure there are many more fun and strong decks out there for defenders to come up with but as attacker there's just so much you can do with only standard cards and no equipement available to you. There are a lot of defenders decks out there that you simply can't stop if they draw perfectly and the AI only needs one perfect draw in 3 tries while you only need to be screwed once in 3 matches and it's over.

      So tl;dr: I LOVE Siege, I think it's a wonderful addition to the game, but I don't think the ante system we have right now will be sustainable much longer (just as @Metronomy predicted)
    • The issues with siege run much deeper than spectral acorns.
      (Concerns about Siege Mode)

      The whole system is off-balance. And not just that but it is designed as a gamble.
      When I go to a casino I go for gambling. I also (at least potentialy) can have a good time (even when I lose). It is priced in. Everyone knows the house always wins.
      But here the other side is not the house. It is another player. That changes the equation psychologicaly. Suddenly I feel like a fool for attacking and losing and I feel like taken advantage of (why am I not the one on the other side?). Even though in a casino its factualy the same it doesnt cause the same emotions. Also...playing Hex shouldnt feel like playing roulette. Maybe as a side game (looking at you wheels of fate) but not the actul card game.

      What happens when you ban acorns (as some suggest) ?
      Defending decks will get weaker. Yes. Will that mean that suddenly attacking is positive ev again? I say no. Especialy longterm people will more and more figure out which decks the AI can play best and the AI is going to improve further (as it should).
      Banning acorns also comes with the price of destroying trust and upsetting some people.

      Trying to rebalance the system again and again and again is not the best solution imo.
      PVE+equips is full of overpowered cards and interactions. Acorns are just the worst and most obvious offender but by far not the only.

      Even when you give players access to pve+equips it doesnt really make it that much better.
      Sure you can maybe achieve a better balance but the amount of one-sided non-interactive games (I personaly call them feels-bad games) will just increase.

      Siege has so much potential. I like the potential challenges. It seems like something I could spent much time with.
      But I dont like playing when I have negative EV and I full well know I have negative EV. In a casino I can barely live with that. Not in Hex. And even in a casino the negative ev has limits. Roulette is close to being a fair game (just the 0 makes it favourable for the house). Siege right now feels like a way too high negative ev. Sure...the low hoard keeps are usually not optimized. But if I want to grind easily doable games against the AI I can also grind arena or campaign with much better gold output.


      TL;DR:
      Yes, Siege has issues. The issues lie in the design of the system. Change that. Make it free to challenge and add leaderboards and gold incentives handed out by the client for reaching certain milestones.

      The post was edited 2 times, last by Metronomy ().

    • NicoSharp wrote:

      Defenders are still not better than Attackers... Outside of acorns. The balance is still in Attackers favor, if that balance is suppose to be 75% Defender / 25% Attacker
      Fair enough. But that just goes to show the problem. The attacker can win far more than he invests. So only having 25% would seem fair. But the thing is it just creates so many bad experiences for the attacker. I personaly dont even enjoy the Las-Vegas casino experience. The Hex-Casino experience is 10 times worse.
    • NicoSharp wrote:

      Defenders are still not better than Attackers... Outside of acorns. The balance is still in Attackers favor, if that balance is suppose to be 75% Defender / 25% Attacker
      But 75/25 means I lose gold/plat as attacker in the long run and that's why more and more people will stop to attack.
      People usually don't like losing money. If you conceal it well or you add value to it it's fine. But with the current ante system it's (too) easy to measure if you are winning or losing.
      If you go 0-3 in your draft you still have the cards you drafted. But if you lose in Siege you just lost your ante and that's it.
      Having an obvious winner/looser is fine in an highly competitive environment but I don't think that's what Siege is meant to be.
    • Metronomy wrote:

      TL;DR:
      Yes, Siege has issues. The issues lie in the design of the system. Change that. Make it free to challenge and add leaderboards and gold incentives handed out by the client for reaching certain milestones.
      Yea I'm sure you can solve a lot of problems by taking out the cost of things and adding free rewards. But the thing that is happening here is we finally have some PvE mode HxE can monetize directly, this is important so that PvE can potentially one day go from being the red headed stepchild that gets crumbs thrown at it when it cries hard enough into a self sustained mode that can finance its own development and upgrades.

      I think the whole gambling thing is fine and adds a fun little adrenaline to the experience, but there needs to be something you get when you lose (cosmetic coins) and win (PvE loot) besides the negative EV of currency gambled.
    • Bootlace wrote:

      Metronomy wrote:

      TL;DR:
      Yes, Siege has issues. The issues lie in the design of the system. Change that. Make it free to challenge and add leaderboards and gold incentives handed out by the client for reaching certain milestones.
      Yea I'm sure you can solve a lot of problems by taking out the cost of things and adding free rewards. But the thing that is happening here is we finally have some PvE mode HxE can monetize directly, this is important so that PvE can potentially one day go from being the red headed stepchild that gets crumbs thrown at it when it cries hard enough into a self sustained mode that can finance its own development and upgrades.
      I think the whole gambling thing is fine and adds a fun little adrenaline to the experience, but there needs to be something you get when you lose (cosmetic coins) and win (PvE loot) besides the negative EV of currency gambled.
      Good point actually. In my original thread I mentioned that the original goal (curreny sink, monetizing pve to some degree) would go away.
      Thing is as long as noone plays it it will never serve any goal.

      Maybe the things you mention at the end can be enough to make people play the mode. I personaly doubt the system will work longterm as long as it reamins negative currency ev to attack and while being a huge gambling system on top of it.
      Those are two separate issue btw. @Trenzalore: 75/25 doesnt necessarily mean negative ev. As long as you make 4 times the ante when you win it would still be zero sum. So its two issues: Right now it is indeed not zero sum to attack and it remains a gamble system with currency involved.

      But yeah...maybe what Bootlace suggests could be enough. Again..I personaly doubt it but it might be worth the try (even though it costs potentialy a lot of design time while meanwhile the low hanging fruits are untouched for years).

      One thing is pretty evident though. Right now the system is not sustainable. Banning Acorns alone is not the solution.
    • I predict a very gloom future for this feature which seemt so good on paper.

      Without even talking about acorn.
      Because defender quickly understand what to build wich can be countered only by specific decks.

      Recently i play against a 100 % lethal deck. There is absolutly no way to dealt with it without specific deckbuilding or just bzdluck in draw for defenser. Meaning making your deck bad against the 2 other encounters.

      It is not really about having access to pve and equipement as a attacker but more about having the possibility to register several decks you can switch between every fight with at least the right to 1 lose (or let the player have a 1 minute look at the defenser deck before choosing yours)