Introducing Cosmic Coins and Siege Sacks

    • Based on very quick play with this today:
      The implementation of Siege Sacks will need a very minor tweak.

      New defenses start with 0 Siege Sacks attributed. (Maybe this is a relic of new sieges made before the patch, and if so, my apologies but I'd still promote 10 sacks as lowest starting base)
      I'm sure this was to prevent gaming the system, but I do feel this was an oversight that hurts interest in attacking new sieges.
      Let's not beat around the bush, It takes time to "farm" these rewards.
      All Siege defenses, at lowest entry point should start with a 10 sack reward (similar to ladder reward)
      Many sieges could take longer than a 3 game ladder match.
      So, I do not believe there needs to be a weighted concern here in gaming the system, this should just be the lowest threshold to encourage attacks on keeps of any size and any amount of wins.

      Secondly, I think there should be marginal reward for taking down a Siege that has more than, 5-10 wins.. Let's say 50% of the Siege Sacks. There will be cases where a players keep is too expensive, or has so many wins, and they want to get attacked, they should not feel bound to time here. (EDIT - if this was not clear - I mean removing a Siege Defense as the Defender)

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

    • Siege needs a lot of TLC if it's going to become an appealing and 'sustainable' game mode; all of the (considerable) AI work still needed aside, I strongly agree that the siege sack situation needs to be adjusted for precisely that reason: it sucks trying to get someone to tackle a siege without letting it sit there pointlessly for hours until it accrues enough sacks to be worth 'bothering with' and then it double-sucks if you're stuck with a good defense that people stop attacking after days or weeks have passed.

      Please, please, please have some kind of grace period 'timeout' for siege defenses where if it hasn't been challenged for X period of time the defender has the option to bow out and recover the siege sacks associated with it. Put a minimum threshold of having been attacked on it if you're that worried about e.g. 'I post a BS defense at 500,000k platinum specifically for it to accrue passive sacks until I reap the mighty reward of 100 siege sacks after nobody attacks it for a week, muahahaha.' Who on earth is going to abuse that for stuff you can't trade? It's a ridiculous timesink for a nothing return. Don't punish people for posting tough defenses, it's hard enough getting the AI not to eat the Play-Doh.
    • Blackwood wrote:

      Siege needs a lot of TLC if it's going to become an appealing and 'sustainable' game mode; all of the (considerable) AI work still needed aside, I strongly agree that the siege sack situation needs to be adjusted for precisely that reason: it sucks trying to get someone to tackle a siege without letting it sit there pointlessly for hours until it accrues enough sacks to be worth 'bothering with' and then it double-sucks if you're stuck with a good defense that people stop attacking after days or weeks have passed.

      Please, please, please have some kind of grace period 'timeout' for siege defenses where if it hasn't been challenged for X period of time the defender has the option to bow out and recover the siege sacks associated with it. Put a minimum threshold of having been attacked on it if you're that worried about e.g. 'I post a BS defense at 500,000k platinum specifically for it to accrue passive sacks until I reap the mighty reward of 100 siege sacks after nobody attacks it for a week, muahahaha.' Who on earth is going to abuse that for stuff you can't trade? It's a ridiculous timesink for a nothing return. Don't punish people for posting tough defenses, it's hard enough getting the AI not to eat the Play-Doh.
      I feel like this system is in place not to further reward those with already impenetrable sieges, but to give incentive too those who do not have/want to make those to actually bother posting keeps, which will give incentive to people without tier 1 100% siegekiller decks to actually play the mode at all.
    • Maybe, maybe not. I am no mindreader. I have a feeling they have good reasoning behind this though. The possible way to do this would be to auto kick keeps which has not been challenged in x hours with rewards to prevent abusing this system to quickly get all the loot, but idk if they did this to prevent what I assume they tried to prevent.
    • We can presume that the intend is to avoid making unassailable keeps that accrue siege sacks over time without actually being engaged. All I'm requesting is that there be some kind of 'failsafe' that doesn't leave players punished for having made a difficult keep that survives 5, 10, 15, 20, 40 assaults, however long, without ever actually being defeated.

      If someone posts a ludicrously out of reach keep to 'run the clock' for siege sacks, don't give a payout if nobody ever engages with it--but there's got to be some kind of middle ground for 'people gave up on attacking my strong defense' eventually or else all you're incentivizing is defenders gaming the system in the other direction and disincentivising people from wanting to make actually challenging defenses.
    • What about having a percentage of the siege sacks if you drop after x amount? (to prevent cheating). So, for example, you have 500 siege sacks. If you withdraw, you get 150. Or something like that.

      From all the updates we had this weeks, siege sacks are the most polemic ones imho. A few tweaks might be needed in the future to make them appealing. This could be a partial solution to a fair complaint.
      Twitter: @Plotynus
    • I am totally on board with having measures in place to avoid abuse / degenerative engagement loops with Siege (or any system of Hex where's there's things on the line.) Hopefully there's enough of a drive of attackers in Siege to make it mostly a 'non-issue'.

      My secondary concern is that there should (imo) be a bit more of an initial 'kick-off' of sacks when a defense is newly posted, if only because so far it seems to heavily favor players going after keeps that have been up longer due to the delay in building an enticing bounty for the first-comer to a particular keep.

      Having a potentially fun/challenging defense sit idle for a few hours simply because nobody wants to go up against a 3-deck battle blind for 3 - 5 sacks is a bit of a bummer. I recognize that this is also ostensibly an 'anti-abuse' measure but at least at first blush it feels a tad punitive to legitimate play in pursuit of discouraging bad behavior.

      Nevertheless, I'll babysit Siege for a few days (this does bring to mind the tertiary request--having some way to automatically re-list siege defenses would be very helpful from a QoL standpoint.)
    • It's interesting that we speak about how to reward unbreakable sieges even more, when there is little to no reason for attackers to risk currency attacking them.

      I think attacking is already only viable with T1 siege breaker decks, but even then I think those pro players would have a better return for their effort playing the cosmic ladder.

      They should completely go back to the drawing board with this mode.
    • Sacks would have been the perfect mid-success reward too...

      I mean... Why not allow Siege Sacks, in small amounts, go to players with marginal success during an attack. Examples:

      They beat 1 of the 3 encounters and they get:
      5 Siege Sacks (for a keep with 5+ Wins)
      10 Siege Sacks (for a keep with 10+ Wins)

      They beat 2 of the 3 encounters and they get:
      10 Siege Sacks (for a keep with 5+ Wins)
      20 Siege Sacks (for a keep with 10+ Wins)

      The idea is you are rewarding time, and marginal success with quick Dopamine hits of rewards.
      The rewards can't be traded, and the mode is ridiculously oppressive anyways, so why not make everyone happy?

      I feel like HEX tries to go to great lengths to encourage us not to play.
      Encourage us to play. This mode should be much less about grinding it down, and the 12.5% administrative burden you pocket, and more about a wholesome, enjoyable, format, for defenders and attackers to fishbowl in.

      You really need to get some "Voice of the Customer" in the work you do, cause you are just missing the target here.
    • NicoSharp wrote:

      Sacks would have been the perfect mid-success reward too...

      I mean... Why not allow Siege Sacks, in small amounts, go to players with marginal success during an attack. Examples:

      They beat 1 of the 3 encounters and they get:
      5 Siege Sacks (for a keep with 5+ Wins)
      10 Siege Sacks (for a keep with 10+ Wins)

      They beat 2 of the 3 encounters and they get:
      10 Siege Sacks (for a keep with 5+ Wins)
      20 Siege Sacks (for a keep with 10+ Wins)

      The idea is you are rewarding time, and marginal success with quick Dopamine hits of rewards.
      The rewards can't be traded, and the mode is ridiculously oppressive anyways, so why not make everyone happy?

      I feel like HEX tries to go to great lengths to encourage us not to play.
      Encourage us to play. This mode should be much less about grinding it down, and the 12.5% administrative burden you pocket, and more about a wholesome, enjoyable, format, for defenders and attackers to fishbowl in.

      You really need to get some "Voice of the Customer" in the work you do, cause you are just missing the target here.

      This is a good idea.
      Since sacks are not tradeable (again, aa shards should be, but that's another discussion) they could give them more freely... what's the point of not doing it? It's a first step to start making siege a fun mode.
      Twitter: @Plotynus
    • NicoSharp wrote:

      Sacks would have been the perfect mid-success reward too...

      I mean... Why not allow Siege Sacks, in small amounts, go to players with marginal success during an attack. Examples:

      They beat 1 of the 3 encounters and they get:
      5 Siege Sacks (for a keep with 5+ Wins)
      10 Siege Sacks (for a keep with 10+ Wins)

      They beat 2 of the 3 encounters and they get:
      10 Siege Sacks (for a keep with 5+ Wins)
      20 Siege Sacks (for a keep with 10+ Wins)

      The idea is you are rewarding time, and marginal success with quick Dopamine hits of rewards.
      The rewards can't be traded, and the mode is ridiculously oppressive anyways, so why not make everyone happy?

      I feel like HEX tries to go to great lengths to encourage us not to play.
      Encourage us to play. This mode should be much less about grinding it down, and the 12.5% administrative burden you pocket, and more about a wholesome, enjoyable, format, for defenders and attackers to fishbowl in.

      You really need to get some "Voice of the Customer" in the work you do, cause you are just missing the target here.
      This idea is fucking stellar i am much more inclined to enjoy the format and have fun challenging a strong keep if a slim chance of enjoyment and prizes and a big chance of defeat after struggling through the whole thing wasn't so present.
    • I tried the siege stuff.The grind for each pack to get enough sacs is insane for untradable stuff.How much time does it take completionists to get all the stuff which is pve or cosmetic?Is it worth burning players time like that instead of letting them buy it for plat and risk burning them out?

      It forces players who want the exclusive play mode that they might not enjoy.

      Why is Hex so keen on forcing players to grind instead of letting them have fun with what they want to do?

      (Also for the it's optional argument take a look at the Jimquistion it's just cosmetics: )
    • RoyG wrote:

      I tried the siege stuff.The grind for each pack to get enough sacs is insane for untradable stuff.How much time does it take completionists to get all the stuff which is pve or cosmetic?Is it worth burning players time like that instead of letting them buy it for plat and risk burning them out?

      It forces players who want the exclusive play mode that they might not enjoy.

      Why is Hex so keen on forcing players to grind instead of letting them have fun with what they want to do?

      (Also for the it's optional argument take a look at the Jimquistion it's just cosmetics: )
      Because they want people to play not to buy directly. People have been crying that they want a reason to grind and to play. Now they have

      Selling directly on the store has not been the best thing ( what cory said ). They are trying multiple avenues


      I believe that if you play regularly you’ll get most of the stuff. Don’t need to have all now

      The sleeves say 2018 sacks pack. I presume this will rotate yearly so your good to grind for the year . Take your time and have fun. I’ll try to get most of it just for the sake of playing more. This move has given me motivation to play more ladder and more siege
    • I would like to see a move away from this all-or-nothing approach completely:
      • Beat 1 deck, get 25% of the hoard.
      • Beat the second deck, get another 25%, 50% total.
      • Beat the third deck, get it all.



      This does a couple things:
      • This encourages defenders to make hard Sieges. (They do this anyhow because of the payment system, so nothing changes here.)
      • This encourages experimentation for attacking decks. Being able to get something back for going 1-X or 2-X lowers the cost of experimentation.
      Making it so the attacker, the one actually playing the format, has to go 3-0 in order to get anything is not good. Especially against decks that can stomp any Standard deck if played reasonably well. When you take down a Siege, it was a hard fought battle that you know you shouldn't have won anyhow. When you lose, it's a complete blowout experience.

      Oh, and make Sieges start at 25 or 50 sacks, or whatever amount seems fair.