Siege - Listing of 60 shard decks

    • Bootlace wrote:

      I had skipped this thread thinking it was another 1234 gold custom community Siege where people put up fun Jank decks, but to my surprise and to be honest shocked amusement, I found something totally different.

      I mean to be honest this is totally a punishable offence if HxE wanted but they obviously won't as it would create even more anger and they don't even need to as they're getting their cut. But let's get this thing clear, this is not a 'victimless crime'. There are people trying to play this mode within the spirit of the game and they're grinding the Sacks at a much slower pace. Furthermore, cosmetics do lose perceived worth the more common they are...if you grinded a year for this cosmetic but tons of people exploited their way to it in a fraction of the time, that's definitely not victimless.

      HxE is at such a weird place though currently I don't even blame people who're doing this. HxE have never been the type to communicate openly to their players and show that empathy so why should the playerbase extend them that courtesy. This gambling Siege approach has been met with widespread discontent but HxE haven't bothered making one word about it. This is why the whole communication strategy NEEDS to change, the rift between the players and devs is so wide that we have insane occurrences like this and I can't even tell who's the side at fault.
      its all fucked up man. sometimes it feel like hex is ran by 1 person.
    • RoyG wrote:

      Morwath wrote:

      They shouldn't ban those people, but they should remove all Siege related rewards from their accounts.
      This will remove those players from the Hex player base as well because it's an extremely ugly move.If they do this it shows the leadership in Hex is beyond bad and the game is incredibly badly managed.Hex can't blame players for their own design mistakes.
      It wouldn't be ugly move.
      Ugly move would be allowing wintraders to keep their rewards, because people who actualy play mode as intended wouldn't be rewarded at all - for example, why would you want to toggle Siege battleboard, if every wintrader has it toggled?
    • Morwath wrote:

      RoyG wrote:

      Morwath wrote:

      They shouldn't ban those people, but they should remove all Siege related rewards from their accounts.
      This will remove those players from the Hex player base as well because it's an extremely ugly move.If they do this it shows the leadership in Hex is beyond bad and the game is incredibly badly managed.Hex can't blame players for their own design mistakes.
      It wouldn't be ugly move.Ugly move would be allowing wintraders to keep their rewards, because people who actualy play mode as intended wouldn't be rewarded at all - for example, why would you want to toggle Siege battleboard, if every wintrader has it toggled?
      Because it looks cool? That's why I want it.
      Old username: Aradon | Collector backer | Starting a guild for Newbies -- "The Cerulean Acadamy" -- Taking applications once guilds are implemented
    • Darkwonders wrote:

      Vroengard wrote:

      The shard-only bot-piloted decks? I would assume they banned the accounts. Since no one has seen these decks since. It's against the ToS to talk about disciplinary actions taken against players, you know.
      ORLY?
      Tournament Integrity – Bash 4/7/18

      Code of Conduct

      Discussing Disciplinary Actions
      Violations include:
      • Creating posts or threads to discuss disciplinary actions taken against a player, including chat logs and email correspondence between a player and a HEX Representative
      • Creating posts or threads to discuss disciplinary actions taken against a character or account on the forums
      Here's my take: There was no disciplinary action taken against HellCrescent. He was asked to voluntarily drop the tournament in order to avoid HXE taking a disciplinary action against him. So this is should be A-Ok.
    • Yasi wrote:

      its all fucked up man. sometimes it feel like hex is ran by 1 person.
      There've been plenty of rumors over the years that Cory structures the company in such a way that such is effectively true.

      Obsidian wrote:

      Morwath wrote:

      It wouldn't be ugly move.Ugly move would be allowing wintraders to keep their rewards, because people who actualy play mode as intended wouldn't be rewarded at all - for example, why would you want to toggle Siege battleboard, if every wintrader has it toggled?
      Because it looks cool? That's why I want it.
      Heh. As an asexual, this conversation is hitting some funny parallels.
      "You have to do it in a particular way, or it's not okay! It's important that everyone does it the same way as me!"
      "Hey, if everyone is having fun and not hurting anyone else, what does it matter?"
      And as usual, I'm in the "Eh, I have battleboards disabled, this entire conversation seems overly dramatic for something that shouldn't even be an issue." corner.

      Of course, we're discussing unlockables in a community-based multiplayer game, not private, personal interactions, so the parallel doesn't quite match up.
      It does, however, still fall closer to that parallel than not, as it's a grinding-based unlock rather than a skill-based one. As such, any whale would already be able to buy their way to it, making claims of elitist recognition rather ridiculous, and any dedicated player'd be able to make it in time, much like achieving Cosmic rank in Ranked.

      In short, there's no inherent prestige to the board, just a personal satisfaction of having unlocked it. Obsidian's perspective is certainly the more appropriate one- if someone else having it is enough to make you not want it, it's time to real question if you ever truly wanted it in the first place.

      Of course, if the devs pick up one any one of the countless alternative Siege frameworks we've recommended, then something in the vein of seasonal ranked prestige rewards for Siege would certainly be possible- and, by virtue of their nature, wouldn't reward win-farming low-return Sieges.
      In the meantime, all prizes are currently doing are rewarding people for putting up with a BS design. There's certainly some prestige in managing to struggle through that framework head-on, but it's also to be expected that players would respond to such negative presentation by finding a way to make the activity fun.

      In summary, it wasn't the win-traders who devalued the battleboard, but HexEnt, when they locked it behind something few users would ever take seriously in its current state. HexEnt designed the mode to be played in the way win-traders are playing it, both by making such permissible, and by making other approaches strongly prohibitive. The community acknowledged that, and is adapting to that presentation.
      Those who are stressing out over that approach being adopted simply aren't seeing the mode as it actually is, but still only as what it could have been.

      That is to say, such users are the ones choosing to approach it in a manner contrary to the common perspective, and in opposition to the framework that has been given, not the win-traders. Kudos for the dedication, but you can't fault others for not matching that approach, any more than I could argue with people not matching me in playing 40 minute Brosi-Buk runs in campaign. It's clearly not the efficient, predictable route to take.

      The post was edited 6 times, last by Azuchi ().

    • Azuchi wrote:



      In short, there's no inherent prestige to the board, just a personal satisfaction of having unlocked it. Obsidian's perspective is certainly the more appropriate one- if someone else having it is enough to make you not want it, it's time to real question if you ever truly wanted it in the first place.
      There can be attraction in exclusivity. Some people may not care for it, which is fine, but that doesn't mean it's false.
      "Ignorant beliefs are stains upon the mind."
    • Vroengard wrote:

      Darkwonders wrote:

      Vroengard wrote:

      The shard-only bot-piloted decks? I would assume they banned the accounts. Since no one has seen these decks since. It's against the ToS to talk about disciplinary actions taken against players, you know.
      ORLY?Tournament Integrity – Bash 4/7/18
      Code of Conduct

      Discussing Disciplinary Actions
      Violations include:
      • Creating posts or threads to discuss disciplinary actions taken against a player, including chat logs and email correspondence between a player and a HEX Representative
      • Creating posts or threads to discuss disciplinary actions taken against a character or account on the forums
      Here's my take: There was no disciplinary action taken against HellCrescent. He was asked to voluntarily drop the tournament in order to avoid HXE taking a disciplinary action against him. So this is should be A-Ok.
      Guess who violated that live on stream and still isn't banned? I won't say, because then my post will get deleted again, but you can guess.
    • Did some math with approximations:

      Let's say a player wants 25 of each AA shard=125 packs at a minimum
      Battleboard-5000 coins,about 50 packs
      coin 1200 about 12 packs
      5 pve cards +equip 30 packs
      3 pvp aa card +equip 18
      about 7 sleeves 7 packs
      3 mercs 3 packs

      That about 25,500 sacks without extra shards of each type.Without win trading it's about 1-3 sacks an hour.With win trading with other players cooperating let's say it's 10 sacks per hour on a good hour and it's still repeating a grind.So about 80-150 hours without trading wins and 10-30 hours with trading wins.Is 80-150 acceptable for non tradable mode that locks pve stuff behind it?

      That's for actually getting all the stuff which some players want.But even if they want certain items they are not tradable.Which according to what written on the sleeves might rotate in 2019.

      Did no one think about it before releasing it?Those numbers are not acceptable.
    • Utremeld wrote:

      Vroengard wrote:

      Darkwonders wrote:

      Vroengard wrote:

      The shard-only bot-piloted decks? I would assume they banned the accounts. Since no one has seen these decks since. It's against the ToS to talk about disciplinary actions taken against players, you know.
      ORLY?Tournament Integrity – Bash 4/7/18
      Code of Conduct
      Discussing Disciplinary Actions
      Violations include:
      • Creating posts or threads to discuss disciplinary actions taken against a player, including chat logs and email correspondence between a player and a HEX Representative
      • Creating posts or threads to discuss disciplinary actions taken against a character or account on the forums
      Here's my take: There was no disciplinary action taken against HellCrescent. He was asked to voluntarily drop the tournament in order to avoid HXE taking a disciplinary action against him. So this is should be A-Ok.
      Guess who violated that live on stream and still isn't banned? I won't say, because then my post will get deleted again, but you can guess.
      There wasn't any disciplinary action taken in that case. HellCrescent was asked to drop the tournament and he agreed to do so.
      "Ignorant beliefs are stains upon the mind."
    • Transience wrote:

      It's acceptable to me with the caveat that the PvE stuff should be tradeable and that nothing should rotate out.
      But it's not tradable.The lack of the tradability makes it that each player is able to get 1 of each merc,1 of each equip and 4 of each PVE card and at some point those things will have to rotate to keep the interest of players.Either that or siege would have to be lots more fun.

      What if one of those extremely limited items will be crucial for future raid or dungeon or PVE content?That's the big problem of going into CCG economic model.
    • Transience wrote:


      There wasn't any disciplinary action taken in that case. HellCrescent was asked to drop the tournament and he agreed to do so.

      Uh, no. He was offered the option to drop voluntarily, or he would be disqualified. He did not have the option to refuse and continue playing. He was disciplined, because he forfeited a potential prize, for their multiple fuckups.
      --ossuary

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

      Transience wrote:

      It's acceptable to me with the caveat that the PvE stuff should be tradeable and that nothing should rotate out.
      But it's not tradable.The lack of the tradability makes it that each player is able to get 1 of each merc,1 of each equip and 4 of each PVE card and at some point those things will have to rotate to keep the interest of players.Either that or siege would have to be lots more fun.
      What if one of those extremely limited items will be crucial for future raid or dungeon or PVE content?That's the big problem of going into CCG economic model.
      That is why i've told you 3 times now that I think they should be tradeable. ;)
      "Ignorant beliefs are stains upon the mind."
    • Ossuary wrote:

      Transience wrote:

      There wasn't any disciplinary action taken in that case. HellCrescent was asked to drop the tournament and he agreed to do so.
      Uh, no. He was offered the option to drop voluntarily, or he would be disqualified. He did not have the option to refuse and continue playing. He was disciplined, because he forfeited a potential prize, for their multiple fuckups.
      That's not what it says in the article.
      "Ignorant beliefs are stains upon the mind."