How far is AZ3 coming?

    • tophat wrote:

      Goliathus wrote:

      They can't even release Set 10 on time and you ask this.
      Technically we've been waiting for AZ3 a lot longer than set 10...
      True, but their tendency is PvP >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>(I would go 9000 characters but eh) PVE. Not releasing AZ3 is big whoop, not releasing Set 10 is Doomsday.
    • A robust PVE experience is what made Hex: The Pitch different from (and better than) Every Other Card Game: The PVP Slog. The only reason PVP makes Hex more money than PVE is because 1) they don't know how to monetize PVE properly, 2) they didn't listen to any of us when we TOLD them how to monetize PVE, and 3) they can't actually calculate how much of the money they DO make is from people who don't give a flying fuck about PVP tournaments.

      The problem is execution (as usual), not conceptualization. If this game had been made in a timely fashion, marketed properly, supported properly, and the video game portion had been designed by actual video game developers (i.e. with proper modern design and interface) as opposed to just card game designers who hired a bunch of programmers to execute their ideas, it should have easily reached a million players by now. Half measures and half-assed implementation of pretty much every step along the path have led us to here, where the only real source of revenue is a continually dwindling interest in their hardcore PVP gameplay, and not even enough money to deliver on that anymore.

      Not releasing set 10 on time is doomsday not because the game needs more PVP, but because HexEnt has completely failed to deliver on their promise of a unique and compelling PVE experience. They only ever really gave us one side of the equation, and the lack of good interface design, good repeatable dynamic PVE experiences, modern group gameplay support, casual gameplay opportunities, and proper marketing support have brought us to the brink. The "PVP is everything" model is not sustainable, full stop. It's probably too late for them to shift course and correct all the many flaws they've left in their wake, but delivering more of the same (slower than ever before) is unlikely to do anything more than delay the inevitable.

      They need to adapt, if that's something they're even capable of. Since they're not even willing or (apparently) able to listen to anyone, as they are firmly locked inside their little echo chamber, we're pretty much doomed to a slow and lingering death.

      Happy five years, Hex! :(
      --ossuary

      "Love all, trust a few, do wrong to none."
      - Shakespeare, All's Well That Ends Well
    • It's going to be interesting to see how LOTR LCG goes through early access and into full release being a PVE only experience (at this stage anyway).

      Hex had it's chance but sadly painted itself into a corner with PVP being the only focus and muppets like Whoogland berating everyone who bought into the original vision.

      Here's hoping an investor can be found and the game gets a reboot.
    • Mokog wrote:

      let's see well with siege in place and some fanagling we could do some fun stuff. Problem is that only one person can do it at a time and with no scripting the story telling would be limited. Az3 could be a great way to explore the hyperborean mountains.

      As often as I have thought about another player made adventure zone experiance the inability to scale content remains a high hurdle to motivation.

      We have plenty of plot hooks to bite on but you need the tools to create not only the fights but the story beats on scale.

      Does anyone want a player made adventure zone? Might be fun to see if I can bust something out before set 10 drops. We could make it an event using existing tech combined with siege, duels, and live streaming to skirt around the gaps.
      I am for player made content, but why to bother when HxE sabotages your effort. They could easily enable basic stories by allowing free sieges with variable number of encounters and more text. If they implemented scripting it would enable really cool mini-campaigns, but let's stay realistic.
    • GryphonGardens wrote:

      Mokog wrote:

      let's see well with siege in place and some fanagling we could do some fun stuff. Problem is that only one person can do it at a time and with no scripting the story telling would be limited. Az3 could be a great way to explore the hyperborean mountains.

      As often as I have thought about another player made adventure zone experiance the inability to scale content remains a high hurdle to motivation.

      We have plenty of plot hooks to bite on but you need the tools to create not only the fights but the story beats on scale.

      Does anyone want a player made adventure zone? Might be fun to see if I can bust something out before set 10 drops. We could make it an event using existing tech combined with siege, duels, and live streaming to skirt around the gaps.
      I am for player made content, but why to bother when HxE sabotages your effort. They could easily enable basic stories by allowing free sieges with variable number of encounters and more text. If they implemented scripting it would enable really cool mini-campaigns, but let's stay realistic.
      player made dungeon with sory's would be amazing, but swill people play it if there is no reward, and giving reward whyle having no disadvantage for the siege creators will probably cause some abuse by people creating easy content as farm.
    • Yes but there is basic criteria. You have to have great execution on challenge and story. Farming is not the only way, now when it is official content you have to consider farming and plan for it.

      Player made content using the front end of the client has an additional challenge of needing to be fun for the challenger and for lack of a better term GM. Else you won't be able to have enough people cycle through the content before burn out.
    • Frederik wrote:

      player made dungeon with sory's would be amazing, but swill people play it if there is no reward, and giving reward whyle having no disadvantage for the siege creators will probably cause some abuse by people creating easy content as farm.
      This can be remedied by setting conditional rewards.

      For example...

      10 gold reward: Encounter can be anything you want.

      50 gold reward: Encounter can only have 40% of its deck consist of resources. Minimum HP of encounters is set to X.

      100 gold reward: Encounter must have a balanced deck with at least 30% resources, 25% troops, etc. Minimum HP of encounters is set to Y.

      150 gold reward: Encounter must have a balanced deck, containing a decent spread of resource cost levels. Minimum HP is set to Z. Must include disadvantages for attacking player, such as starting the encounter off with additional resources, troops in the field, AI only cards in deck, etc.

      If the requirements are strenuous enough, it can be made very difficult to create a cakewalk encounter.
    • Firellius wrote:

      Frederik wrote:

      player made dungeon with sory's would be amazing, but swill people play it if there is no reward, and giving reward whyle having no disadvantage for the siege creators will probably cause some abuse by people creating easy content as farm.
      This can be remedied by setting conditional rewards.
      For example...

      10 gold reward: Encounter can be anything you want.

      50 gold reward: Encounter can only have 40% of its deck consist of resources. Minimum HP of encounters is set to X.

      100 gold reward: Encounter must have a balanced deck with at least 30% resources, 25% troops, etc. Minimum HP of encounters is set to Y.

      150 gold reward: Encounter must have a balanced deck, containing a decent spread of resource cost levels. Minimum HP is set to Z. Must include disadvantages for attacking player, such as starting the encounter off with additional resources, troops in the field, AI only cards in deck, etc.

      If the requirements are strenuous enough, it can be made very difficult to create a cakewalk encounter.
      I would do it differently. Regular player made dungeons wouldn't have reward, unless a player would set it from his funds. Yet, players could rate those dungeons. Then a staff member, or a volunter/s assigned by staff would play those dungeons to see, if they are legit. The best weekly dungeons would be highlighted and would have extra bounty attached to them, even if they were orginaly "free". Such easy free content.
    • "Slay the Spire" another card have have sold over 1 mill copies even thougth it have only been out since 15th of Nov 2017.
      If got more steam rewies then HEX and it have got 95% positive rewies. Hex have 65% positive rewievs.

      "Slay the Spire" bussness model 1) No free-to-play 2) get entire game for 15$.
      I wish HEX have gone fore 1) ccg 2) No free-to-play 3) get acces to everything for 20$ (200 free boosters to get started+free daily boosters to win) + 5$ per new set.

      A mill players paying 20$ each would prodice more income for HEX than the real HEX have produced from start untill today.
      A mill players paying 5 $ each should be enogth to also have a new AZ with each set...

      HEX is a game for players who are willing to pay lots of money and there for have have a vary limmed number of players.
      Imo HEX should have focus on getting as many players as posible not getting as much money out of the few players they got as possible.

      "Slay the Spire" have showned that it is posible for a card game to get millions of players and make a lot of money if priced fairly.
    • Opalia wrote:

      "Slay the Spire" another card have have sold over 1 mill copies even thougth it have only been out since 15th of Nov 2017.
      If got more steam rewies then HEX and it have got 95% positive rewies. Hex have 65% positive rewievs.

      "Slay the Spire" bussness model 1) No free-to-play 2) get entire game for 15$.
      I wish HEX have gone fore 1) ccg 2) No free-to-play 3) get acces to everything for 20$ (200 free boosters to get started+free daily boosters to win) + 5$ per new set.

      A mill players paying 20$ each would prodice more income for HEX than the real HEX have produced from start untill today.
      A mill players paying 5 $ each should be enogth to also have a new AZ with each set...

      HEX is a game for players who are willing to pay lots of money and there for have have a vary limmed number of players.
      Imo HEX should have focus on getting as many players as posible not getting as much money out of the few players they got as possible.

      "Slay the Spire" have showned that it is posible for a card game to get millions of players and make a lot of money if priced fairly.
      I don't think that would've worked. Slay the Spire runs that price (It's more than $15 I think) because it has comparatively very little content. How many cards are there in Slay the Spire? 200?

      I think the basegame has more than that, and every individual set has about 130 I think. Then there's mercs, which are equivalents of their main characters, of which they have three…

      In general, the 'pay X, get access to everything' wouldn't really work as a gameplay model either, in my opinion, as it removes the whole unlocking part from the game. It's true that Slay the Spire has that in its roguelike aspect, but it would make HEX a lot more stale, I suspect.

      What Slay the Spire does is show that you can easily monetise card-game PvE if you just make properly renewable content. HEX went for extremely static content and hasn't improved on that, that is the problem. Siege should've been a gold gain, rather than a gold sink, and HEX's biggest issues would be behind it. Dungeons with randomisation would be absolutely incredible as well, where you get the equivalent of StS's relics during longer dungeon runs.

      Randomised or player-built PvE content would've made HEX a success.
    • Mokog wrote:

      let's see well with siege in place and some fanagling we could do some fun stuff. Problem is that only one person can do it at a time and with no scripting the story telling would be limited. Az3 could be a great way to explore the hyperborean mountains.

      As often as I have thought about another player made adventure zone experiance the inability to scale content remains a high hurdle to motivation.

      We have plenty of plot hooks to bite on but you need the tools to create not only the fights but the story beats on scale.

      Does anyone want a player made adventure zone? Might be fun to see if I can bust something out before set 10 drops. We could make it an event using existing tech combined with siege, duels, and live streaming to skirt around the gaps.
      That would work only if ATKers were also* allowed to use their campaign characters, who they could gain EXP from Sieging and reach lv 20/25/30.

      *apart from PvE cards & equipment
    • Vroengard wrote:

      Mokog wrote:

      let's see well with siege in place and some fanagling we could do some fun stuff. Problem is that only one person can do it at a time and with no scripting the story telling would be limited. Az3 could be a great way to explore the hyperborean mountains.

      As often as I have thought about another player made adventure zone experiance the inability to scale content remains a high hurdle to motivation.

      We have plenty of plot hooks to bite on but you need the tools to create not only the fights but the story beats on scale.

      Does anyone want a player made adventure zone? Might be fun to see if I can bust something out before set 10 drops. We could make it an event using existing tech combined with siege, duels, and live streaming to skirt around the gaps.
      That would work only if ATKers were also* allowed to use their campaign characters, who they could gain EXP from Sieging and reach lv 20/25/30.
      *apart from PvE cards & equipment
      Please explain. I dont think my quote and your quote are talking about the same thing.
    • Mokog wrote:

      Please explain. I dont think my quote and your quote are talking about the same thing.
      It was kind of a belated post, so it's easy to see why it would be miscommunicated.

      The idea of AZ being replaced by Siege could somewhat be conceivable only if, as it's been mentioned, a few things were tweaked in current Siege (namely 0-cost option and more extensive dialog), a few things that were not mentioned here but they are so widely accepted by now that they can be implied were done (allow ATKers to use PvE cards and equipment) and I am now adding that even with the above, the idea couldn't substitute AZ unless ATKers were allowed to use their Campaign characters, who would level and progress via this process.
    • Vroengard wrote:

      idea couldn't substitute AZ unless ATKers were allowed to use their Campaign characters, who would level and progress via this process.
      This would be a must for me as well. It's why siege and arena mean nothing to me. I simply don't CARE about them because I don't have a character to associate with them.
      Gamer. Streamer. Photographer. Writer. Anime Lover. Possessor of Stuffed Animals.

      Also... I'm terrible at this game.
    • Vroengard wrote:

      Mokog wrote:

      Please explain. I dont think my quote and your quote are talking about the same thing.
      It was kind of a belated post, so it's easy to see why it would be miscommunicated.
      The idea of AZ being replaced by Siege could somewhat be conceivable only if, as it's been mentioned, a few things were tweaked in current Siege (namely 0-cost option and more extensive dialog), a few things that were not mentioned here but they are so widely accepted by now that they can be implied were done (allow ATKers to use PvE cards and equipment) and I am now adding that even with the above, the idea couldn't substitute AZ unless ATKers were allowed to use their Campaign characters, who would level and progress via this process.
      This line of thought makes more sense. Siege can not replace an AZ but siege can be used in conjunction with duels and streaming software to make an AZ like experiance for 1 person. It is labor intensive for the game master but can be fun to play and watch. Burn out is high though as it is like GMing the same module multiple times in several hours over a long period with little variation. You get some lucky folks through but it can not scale up from the player side.
    • Mokog wrote:

      This line of thought makes more sense. Siege can not replace an AZ but siege can be used in conjunction with duels and streaming software to make an AZ like experiance for 1 person. It is labor intensive for the game master but can be fun to play and watch.
      It's prohibitively hard for a player to do, but not so much for the automated HXE sieges. Not only are those automatically re-up'ped, but you could make it so each siege somehpw "unlocks" the next (to simulate the linear path easier -> harder of an AZ map). Yes, that's not something that is in and it's work in order to implement, but it'd be easier than preparing an actual AZ.