Poll: Given the many recent new additions/changes to Hex in the last weeks (Merry Melee modes, Cosmic Coins/Siege Sacks, Ladder changes), is your future outlook on Hex positive?

  • SlayerStronghold wrote:

    Ossuary wrote:

    Basically, every single possible way HexEnt is attempting to manage this game, they're doing wrong. If it weren't so god damn depressing, it would actually be pretty funny. :P
    we need someone like rudy from alpha investments for hex.
    "We need more money to pay artists- quick what can we do?"
    "Stop weekly money prizes"
    "Not enough"
    "ask for money to play the game"
    "We already do"
    "No, even more than that - slap prices on gauntlets"
    "There's too much money going around in game..."
    "We need a money sink - change Siege from play to buy mode"
    ...



    sat·ire
    /ˈsaˌtī(ə)r/
    noun
    the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.
    (ideally with the intent of shaming individuals, corporations, government, or society itself into improvement.)
    Most Youtube creators don't care at all about Hex, I've made several efforts to several channels, including Rudy, to get some feedback on Hex and potentially spark interest but nobody bites. Shame too, I would love to see Rudy make a video on Hex and how its been mismanaged, get some entertainment out of this mess.
  • In terms of gameplay, I'm quite satisfied with the current state of affairs- not all modes are good, but there are modes I do enjoy playing and they are now rewarded well enough for my tastes. To be exact, I like playing ladder and gauntlets, with less interest in scheduled events. Are there things I would change given the chance? Absolutely, but the game is in a state where I enjoy playing it and would not feel bad about spending some cash to do so- but I never did expect a return on investment when it came to putting money in the game.

    I do think that whether the game succeeds or not has more to do with factors external to the game, at this point- the game itself is more or less what I want it to be, the struggle is convincing players (existing and new) of that.

    I think it's sad that the community is so hung up on promises that were made a long time ago- they are justified to be hung up on those things, but it's sad that the game is so rarely judged for what it is and so often judged for what it was supposed to be.
  • Utremeld wrote:

    SlayerStronghold wrote:

    Ossuary wrote:

    Basically, every single possible way HexEnt is attempting to manage this game, they're doing wrong. If it weren't so god damn depressing, it would actually be pretty funny. :P
    we need someone like rudy from alpha investments for hex."We need more money to pay artists- quick what can we do?"
    "Stop weekly money prizes"
    "Not enough"
    "ask for money to play the game"
    "We already do"
    "No, even more than that - slap prices on gauntlets"
    "There's too much money going around in game..."
    "We need a money sink - change Siege from play to buy mode"
    ...



    sat·ire
    /ˈsaˌtī(ə)r/
    noun
    the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.
    (ideally with the intent of shaming individuals, corporations, government, or society itself into improvement.)
    Most Youtube creators don't care at all about Hex, I've made several efforts to several channels, including Rudy, to get some feedback on Hex and potentially spark interest but nobody bites. Shame too, I would love to see Rudy make a video on Hex and how its been mismanaged, get some entertainment out of this mess.
    This would be epic. For some reason I wish he would do it as Russian Rudy. There would be plenty of floppy tacos, because HexEnt / Garbage Fire Investments are currently taking the bus straight to Hosetown. Only little Timmies allowed.
  • avgasblomman wrote:

    In terms of gameplay, I'm quite satisfied with the current state of affairs- not all modes are good, but there are modes I do enjoy playing and they are now rewarded well enough for my tastes. To be exact, I like playing ladder and gauntlets, with less interest in scheduled events. Are there things I would change given the chance? Absolutely, but the game is in a state where I enjoy playing it and would not feel bad about spending some cash to do so- but I never did expect a return on investment when it came to putting money in the game.

    I do think that whether the game succeeds or not has more to do with factors external to the game, at this point- the game itself is more or less what I want it to be, the struggle is convincing players (existing and new) of that.

    I think it's sad that the community is so hung up on promises that were made a long time ago- they are justified to be hung up on those things, but it's sad that the game is so rarely judged for what it is and so often judged for what it was supposed to be.

    Sure, we can judge it for what it is, too. Badly managed, poorly communicated, 10 years outdated UI design, barely functional auction house, still no actual trading implemented, still no proper new user experience or onboarding process, slow as FUCK ridiculous resource hog full of memory leaks and interminable loading on every search / query, most patches introduce new bugs or reintroduce previously fixed bugs, many bugs are 2+ years old with no sign of any fixes coming... it's just on the whole a SUPER unprofessional looking product (aside from the art, obviously). Did I miss anything?

    You are happy and have everything you personally are looking for in the product. Good for you. We're not. That's not necessarily because we're only looking at the many, many unfulfilled promises... maybe, just maybe, they're NOT doing what we want and what we're looking for? The fact that what we're looking for is what they promised us we would have just makes it yet another failing on their part, not us having unreasonable expectations.
    --ossuary

    "Love all, trust a few, do wrong to none."
    - Shakespeare, All's Well That Ends Well
  • avgasblomman wrote:

    In terms of gameplay, I'm quite satisfied with the current state of affairs- not all modes are good, but there are modes I do enjoy playing and they are now rewarded well enough for my tastes. To be exact, I like playing ladder and gauntlets, with less interest in scheduled events. Are there things I would change given the chance? Absolutely, but the game is in a state where I enjoy playing it and would not feel bad about spending some cash to do so- but I never did expect a return on investment when it came to putting money in the game.

    I do think that whether the game succeeds or not has more to do with factors external to the game, at this point- the game itself is more or less what I want it to be, the struggle is convincing players (existing and new) of that.

    I think it's sad that the community is so hung up on promises that were made a long time ago- they are justified to be hung up on those things, but it's sad that the game is so rarely judged for what it is and so often judged for what it was supposed to be.
    You convince players by offering good gameplay. We are bleeding players and limited looks like it is at a all time low. Like it or not the game was never a big pvp success. I think alot of the pve folks went along with it, but they stopped playing and it is showing.

    Siege, current limited rewards and state of pve is not good gameplay. The data shows not what people are thinking on the forums, but the actual state of the game.

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

  • Pandaemonium wrote:

    avgasblomman wrote:

    In terms of gameplay, I'm quite satisfied with the current state of affairs- not all modes are good, but there are modes I do enjoy playing and they are now rewarded well enough for my tastes. To be exact, I like playing ladder and gauntlets, with less interest in scheduled events. Are there things I would change given the chance? Absolutely, but the game is in a state where I enjoy playing it and would not feel bad about spending some cash to do so- but I never did expect a return on investment when it came to putting money in the game.

    I do think that whether the game succeeds or not has more to do with factors external to the game, at this point- the game itself is more or less what I want it to be, the struggle is convincing players (existing and new) of that.

    I think it's sad that the community is so hung up on promises that were made a long time ago- they are justified to be hung up on those things, but it's sad that the game is so rarely judged for what it is and so often judged for what it was supposed to be.
    You convince players by offering good gameplay. We are bleeding players and limited looks like it is at a all time low. Like it or not the game was never a big pvp success. I think alot of the pve folks went along with it, but they stopped playing and it is showing.
    Siege, current limited rewards and state of pve is not good gameplay. The data shows not what people are thinking on the forums, but the actual state of the game.
    Siege sucks and can improve a lot. But it's not like the whole game is siege. I think people bash siege so much because they feel they wasted pve dev time on it (also the whole devs vs community thing going on). PVP-wise, the game is in a very good spot. It just needs a few tweaks and more players.
    Twitter: @Plotynus
  • Plotynus wrote:

    Siege sucks and can improve a lot. But it's not like the whole game is siege. I think people bash siege so much because they feel they wasted pve dev time on it (also the whole devs vs community thing going on). PVP-wise, the game is in a very good spot. It just needs a few tweaks and more players.
    It doesn't have more players because obviously it's not in a very good spot for PVP. If it would be, then more people would stick with it, and not leaving the game behind. This is how it works with games... if people enjoy it, they play it. Very simple.

    It's an entirely different matter that WHY it is not in a better spot for competitive PVP, if it's obviously the main focus of the devs, well above PVE or casual PVP. While I'm playing card games for about 20 years, I don't consider myself an expert, so I don't try to pinpont what could be missing.

    Edit : People bash siege because it's bad AND cost currency AND with anti-TCG rewards. Of course, they could have spent the development time better (even on bugfixes or client improvment), but as a alpha version for the promised Keeps it could have been justified. In it's current form it's not.
  • Wolzarg wrote:

    cainhu wrote:

    but as a alpha version for the promised Keeps it could have been justified. In it's current form it's not.
    Ironic considering they literally said it is not finished when they released it but they knew people wanted to get their hands on it so they let it go early.
    Yeah, I know. To be clear: i don't have a problem that they released Siege, but they refused to adjust it based on player feedback for months, and put exclusive non-tradeable rewards into it. and it's a paid, money-sink mode. All of this are not acceptable for an alpha, and does feels like they considering it as a mostly finished product.
  • Plotynus wrote:

    PVP-wise, the game is in a very good spot. It just needs a few tweaks and more players.
    I doubt statements like this, though as a PvE player i am not much familiar with PvP. Maybe explaining strenghts compared to other TCGs/CCGs would help.

    My best guess is PvP is narrowly defined as 1v1 competitive constructed, good means HxE threw in a lot of rewards for winning, and the posters favorite archetype is winning a lot.
  • GryphonGardens wrote:

    Plotynus wrote:

    PVP-wise, the game is in a very good spot. It just needs a few tweaks and more players.
    I doubt statements like this, though as a PvE player i am not much familiar with PvP. Maybe explaining strenghts compared to other TCGs/CCGs would help.
    My best guess is PvP is narrowly defined as 1v1 competitive constructed, good means HxE threw in a lot of rewards for winning, and the posters favorite archetype is winning a lot.
    The PVP is good there are multiple strong archetypes and its overall not dominated by any one strategy. There are tools to combat most decks meaning sideboards are meaningful. It is healthier than magic has been for a long while in the standard enviroment so as far as serious answer based card games go there are only two and hex is currently better.
  • PvP is in a good spot in that there is a meta and there are four month rotations. However, pvp is not in a good spot because it has so few players. The vast majority of work hex has done is getting more pvp players (this includes pve as per a Cory interview). The data does not lie, limited is damn close to a all time low and we get a total of around 85 people on average playing bash. A new set every four months is expensive and the question now is it profitable.

    The issue in my mind is that pvp is not rewarding for the average or slightly below average player. That is why CCGs are doing so well, there is progression which does not exist as much in Hex (signature decks help). I dont think there is a silver bullet either given the business model for this game.

    There may come a point where charging for good pve would make more money then a new pvp set.
  • cainhu wrote:

    Plotynus wrote:

    Siege sucks and can improve a lot. But it's not like the whole game is siege. I think people bash siege so much because they feel they wasted pve dev time on it (also the whole devs vs community thing going on). PVP-wise, the game is in a very good spot. It just needs a few tweaks and more players.
    It doesn't have more players because obviously it's not in a very good spot for PVP. If it would be, then more people would stick with it, and not leaving the game behind. This is how it works with games... if people enjoy it, they play it. Very simple.
    It's an entirely different matter that WHY it is not in a better spot for competitive PVP, if it's obviously the main focus of the devs, well above PVE or casual PVP. While I'm playing card games for about 20 years, I don't consider myself an expert, so I don't try to pinpont what could be missing.

    Edit : People bash siege because it's bad AND cost currency AND with anti-TCG rewards. Of course, they could have spent the development time better (even on bugfixes or client improvment), but as a alpha version for the promised Keeps it could have been justified. In it's current form it's not.

    The logic behind your reasoning is flawed. First, tying success with quality, in both ways, it's a mistake. Games like Hex are destined to be niche unless a huge amount of resources goes into marketing. And it still won't be able to fight the big ones. Even that, Hex is a relatively "old" game, so it's obvious that it's popularity and hype from the alpha will decline, even more if we have in account that a lot backers were pve-players and now are disappointed ones. Niche games have to keep people engaged or the amount of people leaving will be bigger than the ones incoming, that's a true fact and that is a spot Hex has been working on a lot recently. That puts the game in a better spot for PvP that a few months ago. (Which in that case, I agree with you, the pvp was having several issues and that explains the drop on the activity)

    You now have:
    - A good standard format with a ladder with free continuous rewards (the 7 packs plus gold and aa from the ladder, plus cosmic coins)
    - The Bash / Clash is now more attractive to the average player (shorter and not top-8ed on prize structure, and you have 2 days to play them)
    - Immortal gauntlet for a different format
    - The merry meele, which I know, it has a lot of issues regarding formats and payments, but it's an attempt to cover casual pvp which can further improve.
    - Without counting limited, which asides from the low activity, the major tweak I can see is regarding the payout structure for drafts.
    - If you're a new player, you have very cheap decks to build, either by yourself (candles, for example, or almost any aggro deck) or through the store at $25.

    So, basically, every corner of the pvp game has a bit of love going around. There're some major tweaks needed? Yes, more free casual support and a better new player experience (besides ah revamp). But the need for improvement doesn't means that everything is bad.
    Twitter: @Plotynus
  • Wolzarg wrote:

    GryphonGardens wrote:

    Plotynus wrote:

    PVP-wise, the game is in a very good spot. It just needs a few tweaks and more players.
    I doubt statements like this, though as a PvE player i am not much familiar with PvP. Maybe explaining strenghts compared to other TCGs/CCGs would help.My best guess is PvP is narrowly defined as 1v1 competitive constructed, good means HxE threw in a lot of rewards for winning, and the posters favorite archetype is winning a lot.
    The PVP is good there are multiple strong archetypes and its overall not dominated by any one strategy. There are tools to combat most decks meaning sideboards are meaningful. It is healthier than magic has been for a long while in the standard enviroment so as far as serious answer based card games go there are only two and hex is currently better.
    I can believe 1v1 competitive constructed is good, but it is not The PvP, more like a niche even within TCGs. In my opinion this is the reason for low player count in a supposedly good game. Going head on against Magic doesn't help either.
  • Whiteyzz wrote:

    How to fix this

    I'm sorry but it's Impossible to fix this mess now, hopefully I'm wrong here. Fuck I would love to be wrong and have every naysayer to me be right. We can't change anything major, we can only add new stuff and hopes it fixes the previous issues.
    I think Whiteyzz's post hits the nail on the head. A digital TCG on paper sounded good, but in reality it just doesn't work without a massive player base. We never got there...

    The part that i quoted is the most concerning part. The best move for HexEnt would be to move to a CCG model with crafting and a much lower cost per player. However this would be a massive slap in the face to everyone who has put loads of cash into the game at this point. It's a lose lose situation for HexEnt, It needs fresh players and the best/easiest way to get them is to upset everyone who currently pays/plays. I don't really care about the value of my collection anymore and would be happy to see it fall to 0 if it would get Hex to a point where it was actively being developed again. I have enjoyed the game in the past a lot, but the lack of meaningful content update and the lack of development interaction with the community have really taken it's toll on the community and the game. Siege and Merry Melee are absolutely a bare minimum effort and they simply aren't enough to do anything other than further fuel the communities disenchantment with how the game is progressing.

    I'm pretty sure Hex is on life support at this point. Five years of development without making enough money to support itself must have cost a considerable amount of money to sustain. I would assume most of the folks working on the game have probably resumed their normal duties at Cryptozoic which actually makes great games and is capable of generating revenue. The lack of developer interaction with the community is the result of this. They have an actual successful business to run and that business isn't HexEnt.
  • I mean, the best way to grow Hex isn't to flood a bunch of players in, it's to improve some base functionalities of the product, improve new-player experiences, and let the game grow naturally. MtG didn't start out as an international competitive game, it grew over 20 years. If the lights are still on, it's not too late to change direction.
    Old username: Aradon | Collector backer | Starting a guild for Newbies -- "The Cerulean Acadamy" -- Taking applications once guilds are implemented
  • Obsidian wrote:

    I mean, the best way to grow Hex isn't to flood a bunch of players in, it's to improve some base functionalities of the product, improve new-player experiences, and let the game grow naturally. MtG didn't start out as an international competitive game, it grew over 20 years. If the lights are still on, it's not too late to change direction.
    If the game was new then I would agree but after 5 years much of the potential audience has come and gone and will not be back regardless of any improvements made so it would be too little too late. I have no idea where too from here considering the litany of mistakes that have been and are still being made, I don't have much confidence that anyone at HXE can turn things around but I hope to be surprised. I know hindsight is a wonderful thing but dam, what a steaming hot mess this game has turned out to be which isn't fair considering how good the base game play is. Here's hoping the tablet release goes well and increases the player base to the point where not only the lights stay on but real gains can be made in game (looking at you Guilds/proper AH/Raids/Multiplayer).
  • Where's the option for those of us who think that these new additions are little better than cash grabs that make it obvious that Hex is struggling financially?

    I've personally predicted that there's some really, really bad news on the horizon. We may get one or two more sets and then I expect a period of maintenance, followed by server shutdown.