Adventure Zone 3?

    • New

      AceBladewing wrote:

      That's the problem though. It's always "just be patient and wait". When is it too long to wait before we can say the Kickstarter promises weren't delivered?
      3 years ago.


      Frederik wrote:

      OzawaWanderer wrote:

      Hex is decent I don't want to throw them under the robot but you gotta admit we get nothing but PVE is hard" as a defense towards not having regular content I get designing pve cards and content be harder then PvP but AZ2 was last year and half way to 5th month of year and all we get is siege and FRA 2.0. What most of us pvers joined for was campaign and raids Gauntlet Mode is technically PVE your right Siege is wild west we're ever gonna get but it is not Campaign. We also still don't have the other two classes and some of us been wanting to be a Warlock since set 1. But they told us nope can't add Ranger Warlock and Rogue to AZ1 we rather give AZ1 now then wait longer. Come on been long enough surely you've designed all talents for Rogue and Warlock by now? Or are we OCding over Set 10?
      I cant fully disagree here as i would lopve to have raids, the other classes and more AZ'sbut be honest the last few months they improved on communication and hopefully realized how important PvE is for the game.
      Ever since that mega topic in december they have done siege and some improvements for FRA.
      Is it perfect, no. Do we want more. Yes. but lets be patient for a little whyle longer and give them a last chance.
      We have been patient enough.
      Cory and his team have been given enough chances to proof that their/his words and promises mean something.
    • New

      Needle wrote:

      AceBladewing wrote:

      That's the problem though. It's always "just be patient and wait". When is it too long to wait before we can say the Kickstarter promises weren't delivered?
      3 years ago.

      Frederik wrote:

      OzawaWanderer wrote:

      Hex is decent I don't want to throw them under the robot but you gotta admit we get nothing but PVE is hard" as a defense towards not having regular content I get designing pve cards and content be harder then PvP but AZ2 was last year and half way to 5th month of year and all we get is siege and FRA 2.0. What most of us pvers joined for was campaign and raids Gauntlet Mode is technically PVE your right Siege is wild west we're ever gonna get but it is not Campaign. We also still don't have the other two classes and some of us been wanting to be a Warlock since set 1. But they told us nope can't add Ranger Warlock and Rogue to AZ1 we rather give AZ1 now then wait longer. Come on been long enough surely you've designed all talents for Rogue and Warlock by now? Or are we OCding over Set 10?
      I cant fully disagree here as i would lopve to have raids, the other classes and more AZ'sbut be honest the last few months they improved on communication and hopefully realized how important PvE is for the game.Ever since that mega topic in december they have done siege and some improvements for FRA.
      Is it perfect, no. Do we want more. Yes. but lets be patient for a little whyle longer and give them a last chance.
      We have been patient enough.Cory and his team have been given enough chances to proof that their/his words and promises mean something.
      You are welcome to leave any time, in fact if you can't post anything but disparaging remarks about cory and the company I think that is exactly what you should do.

      I want more from HexEnt just like everyone else but I don't see that as an excuse to act rude, childish, and vindictive.

      I doubt they are any more pleased than we are at the current state of Hex. I know I won't agree with all their decisions (I don't even agree with all the decisions they have made so far) but I know they are working to make things better. I don't think everything they have done were the right choices but I know they made them with the best interest of the game in mind.
    • New

      Sukebe wrote:

      Needle wrote:

      AceBladewing wrote:

      That's the problem though. It's always "just be patient and wait". When is it too long to wait before we can say the Kickstarter promises weren't delivered?
      3 years ago.

      Frederik wrote:

      OzawaWanderer wrote:

      Hex is decent I don't want to throw them under the robot but you gotta admit we get nothing but PVE is hard" as a defense towards not having regular content I get designing pve cards and content be harder then PvP but AZ2 was last year and half way to 5th month of year and all we get is siege and FRA 2.0. What most of us pvers joined for was campaign and raids Gauntlet Mode is technically PVE your right Siege is wild west we're ever gonna get but it is not Campaign. We also still don't have the other two classes and some of us been wanting to be a Warlock since set 1. But they told us nope can't add Ranger Warlock and Rogue to AZ1 we rather give AZ1 now then wait longer. Come on been long enough surely you've designed all talents for Rogue and Warlock by now? Or are we OCding over Set 10?
      I cant fully disagree here as i would lopve to have raids, the other classes and more AZ'sbut be honest the last few months they improved on communication and hopefully realized how important PvE is for the game.Ever since that mega topic in december they have done siege and some improvements for FRA.Is it perfect, no. Do we want more. Yes. but lets be patient for a little whyle longer and give them a last chance.
      We have been patient enough.Cory and his team have been given enough chances to proof that their/his words and promises mean something.
      You are welcome to leave any time, in fact if you can't post anything but disparaging remarks about cory and the company I think that is exactly what you should do.
      I want more from HexEnt just like everyone else but I don't see that as an excuse to act rude, childish, and vindictive.

      I doubt they are any more pleased than we are at the current state of Hex. I know I won't agree with all their decisions (I don't even agree with all the decisions they have made so far) but I know they are working to make things better. I don't think everything they have done were the right choices but I know they made them with the best interest of the game in mind.
      He/she is just as welcome to post their thoughts on the game here, as are you...just because there are people that don't have their head in the sand like so many here do, doesn't make their opinions any less valid than anyone else. Patience is something that we all have in different measures and some have long since run out and moved on.

      Kickstarter - Just a reminder on the vision/promises made all those years ago to compare what we have present day....is it any wonder there is the negative feeling that exists today from some in the community?

      I personally think it's getting too late for Hex now, there is just way too much competition that currently exists and will do this year...if only we got something akin to Shandalar as has been mentioned already with proper monetization but it's too late now.
    • New

      Largashbur wrote:

      PvE with high replayability that has been updated with Set 7, Set 8 and Set 9 = FRA.

      Why do people always discount FRA updates as "PvE is not getting any support anymore"?

      And that is not even taking into account Siege, which is quite unique new fun to be had with PvE cards and equipment, like Frederik has also pointed out.
      It is discounted, because FRA 2.0 shows how to do PVE wrong. Honestly, I don't think they put much effort to it, especially not much playtesting or balancing.

      It's full of overtuned encounters, some enemies doesn't really play HEX... basically it's WAY more frustrating than fun. It would be great that they added more enemies to face there, if they would do it in a fun way.

      in FRA 1.0 I could at least try some wicked fun decks, and still don't automatically lose after tier 1. In FRA 2.0 the AI may have 2 creatures and a constant which in itself cripple my deck before I play my first resource if I'm getting unlucky.
    • New

      Just a small question :

      If they would release AZ3, but it would not be free but cost something like 500 plat/lots of gold, would you buy it or not?

      For example I think Elder Scrolls Legends has such purchasable story content. You get extra reward (no in-game advantage) I think if you buy it with real money all at once.

      So I think, saying that PVE content could not be monetized is completely wrong.
    • New

      I would also buy an AZ. Just because I paid for a KS already doesn't mean I still don't want those features, and if money is needed to make that happen, I am still willing to pay money.

      I mean, Ks tiers paid for themselves in packs anyways. Ideally, we'd have the full PvE environment just from the KS, but if that can't happen, no big deal. Still want PvE, still willing to pay money.
      Old username: Aradon | Collector backer | Starting a guild for Newbies -- "The Cerulean Acadamy" -- Taking applications once guilds are implemented
    • New

      Sukebe wrote:

      As a grand king backer I would I would still be perfectly happy paying up to $10 or so per new adventure zone
      In my personnal opinion, there is not enough players to ''pay'' for the extra content.

      When you have a really F2P game (CCG) where you have a mass of players, including F2P ones because of th CCG model, when you put out extra content for 10$, you are hitting a bigger chance of making money out of it if. If 25% of your whole playerbase are interested in PVE, its not with a 4000 player base that you will make money, but when you have a 20,000 playerbase, that 25% is more interesting.

      Current AZ must cost a fortune to make.

      If you want PVE to succeed, it not only needs to be rethinked, it needs to be a fullly featured product, not a zone per zone release with future stuff coming.
    • New

      Portensio wrote:

      Sukebe wrote:

      As a grand king backer I would I would still be perfectly happy paying up to $10 or so per new adventure zone
      In my personnal opinion, there is not enough players to ''pay'' for the extra content.
      When you have a really F2P game (CCG) where you have a mass of players, including F2P ones because of th CCG model, when you put out extra content for 10$, you are hitting a bigger chance of making money out of it if. If 25% of your whole playerbase are interested in PVE, its not with a 4000 player base that you will make money, but when you have a 20,000 playerbase, that 25% is more interesting.

      Current AZ must cost a fortune to make.

      If you want PVE to succeed, it not only needs to be rethinked, it needs to be a fullly featured product, not a zone per zone release with future stuff coming.
      I wonder where you got that 25%. there was recently a post with an poll in it.
      strawpoll.me/15472047/r

      What i see here is that 35% want co-op/raid (multiplayer campaign/PvE) and 20% wants the single player PvE.

      So thats 55% that is picking a PvE option in that recent poll.
    • New

      Frederik wrote:

      Portensio wrote:

      Sukebe wrote:

      As a grand king backer I would I would still be perfectly happy paying up to $10 or so per new adventure zone
      In my personnal opinion, there is not enough players to ''pay'' for the extra content.When you have a really F2P game (CCG) where you have a mass of players, including F2P ones because of th CCG model, when you put out extra content for 10$, you are hitting a bigger chance of making money out of it if. If 25% of your whole playerbase are interested in PVE, its not with a 4000 player base that you will make money, but when you have a 20,000 playerbase, that 25% is more interesting.

      Current AZ must cost a fortune to make.

      If you want PVE to succeed, it not only needs to be rethinked, it needs to be a fullly featured product, not a zone per zone release with future stuff coming.
      I wonder where you got that 25%. there was recently a post with an poll in it.strawpoll.me/15472047/r

      What i see here is that 35% want co-op/raid (multiplayer campaign/PvE) and 20% wants the single player PvE.

      So thats 55% that is picking a PvE option in that recent poll.
      sorry, I should of been more clear. The 25% is a totally invented number but the % does not matter even if its 55% because 55% of 4000 vs 55% of 20,000 people, its still a big difference. (it could be 100%)
    • New

      Portensio wrote:

      sorry, I should of been more clear. The 25% is a totally invented number but the % does not matter even if its 55% because 55% of 4000 vs 55% of 20,000 people, its still a big difference. (it could be 100%)
      What if the PVE is so good that another 5000 players join the game? 55% of 4000 + 100% of 5000(cuz they join for PVE) isn't that bad. Also, there are a lot of PVE players who are ex-players at this point and the potential of them coming back is much higher than PVP. Those who like PVP are already here and the numbers ain't looking so good as of now.