ELDER DRAGON HEXLANDER - for posterity

    • NicoSharp wrote:

      Thanks for the feedback. I think one thing HEX tries to do, is differentiate itself more now from its competitors. One way they are doing this is in product identity,

      My suggestion has been: Jankleton
      This mainly supports two terms used, that empower some of the deck building restrictions this mode asks for:
      Large decks, and Highlander concepts.

      What I think could be really cool is:
      Everyone plays this game with the same champion.
      That Champion is the combined Mercenaries - Clatterclank/Sin'Glar. With all their deckbuilding restrictions (150 card deck optional, 99 minimum)
      He would have 50 health, and 2 charge powers. If you choose to play less than 150 cards, you lose 10 health, and the 2nd charge power
      1 - 3 cost - Sin'Glar charge - that draws a card, then you choose and discard a card
      2 - 5 cost - Clatterclank charge - Takes a random card from your take and changes it's cost to zero

      This mode could easily enable PvE and Equipment, and would be an Immortal format.
      I like the concept of no bans, but I guess I can get behind banning Subtle Striker.
      This would be a 1-on-1 battle mode unranked option, and then we can attempted to get a twice a week supported tournament out of it.

      Thoughts?
      Like Schild said, the more we make this low-hanging fruit, the easier it will be to make this a functional and supported game-mode. If we work in the games abilities now, all the above should be low-hanging.
      im really trying to keep it simple but I'd like mercs to be usable. Adding 50 cards for jankbot is something almost no decks will want to do. This set of changes complicates the format a good deal.
    • Y'know I hadn't really given this as much as a chance as I should have personally and I don't want this to come off as condescending by any means. Asking specifically for a format that was born and bread by a community from another game in some sense has always sounded to me like it did Hex and its players a disservice. I believe that the game deserves something that is more original and makes a better use of the digital space.

      That said I respect that you're outlining what is probably the simplest possible path to enjoying a format that you would like to be able to play.

      I've been a long time advocate for there being a wider variety of formats supported for the game, that growing that casual base of players that is logging in because they ENJOY the game and tinkering with it. Right now everything we have in client for pvp is directed at competitive play for stakes. I hope to see this change in the not too distant future, ESPECIALLY with the addition of cosmetics which to some extent do cater to a more casual audience. They're able to play with that thing they bought for cosmetics way more often than they'd be able to play the ONE hierophant which they purchased. It is understandable, even if not ideal from a player perspective, that all the existing structures on the pvp side of the game are there for PAYING customers.

      That's not really the point and I don't wanna sidetrack this. But one of a the largest hurdles a strictly digital game like this will face is that the players will always be able to play within the confines of the client / software and the lines of code that make it up. The sandbox will always have an artificial wall at its borders which keeps the players from exploring further. I welcome any opportunity to push those walls further back because right now they have been pretty constricting for quite some time. There's room for additional communities to flourish within and around the game.

      I do like the discussion that is taking place between @schild and @NicoSharp on what seem like things that are taken for granted in a different format and whether there is a reason for them to exist in hex or if we can do better than that.
    • The lack of casual options certainly makes the game a harder sell to my friends. Hex is a great competitive game, but not a very good casual/social one outside of PVE.

      A slow, casual format for janky decks like EDH would be one great step forward.

      The ability for one player to easily provide decks for both players in a casual match (in the same way you can just walk up to somebody IRL and hand them a TCG deck) would be another.

      Custom private tournaments would be huge too, but I recognize that's not quite such a low hanging fruit.
    • schild wrote:

      There's a slew of stuff I'd like to see in this format, but frankly, I want the path of least resistance.

      But deep down, I want to know why this isn't in the game yet.

      "We're working on our own thing" isn't really an answer at this point.
      This was pretty much answered in the Cory Q&A, here's the quote from the transcript:


      "Cory: Yeah, I mean, I think what the most likely scenario is, is that we can have queues that open up on a rotating basis and we’ll curate the experience of what those other formats are and when they’re available. One of the things we’re most cognizant of is making sure there are enough players to fill the queues of the features that we have now. So when you give too many options, the potential is that you can rob the momentum and the threshold necessary for some of this stuff to fire off on a regular basis. I currently play a lot of Evo, I play Constructed, and I see people online saying they wait X amount of time, but I play constantly and at weird, different times of the day, and I can usually find games relatively quickly. So I’m pretty happy with that, and I just wanna be real careful about scalability and how many queues we offer, so that we don’t, you know, create a system where everyone is sitting in a different queue and no one gets to play. That’s the big fear."


      IIRC Wild West was promised in the Kickstarter, so maybe that will happen next - it's a unique format that can be played pretty casually. I'm sure they've been discussing a lot of ideas internally, but Cory left out that casual formats won't make them as much money while they're detracting from the more lucrative queues.
    • Yea, I heard his answer.

      Acting out of fear is terrible.

      He's ignoring what is possibly the largest format on Earth (and certainly the largest casual format, of ANY card game) because it might take 30 seconds longer to trigger a constructed match or something?

      That's what I'm talking about when I say waiting longer to implement it is absurd. EDH feeds competitive formats. Competitive formats don't feed EDH. It's expansion, the act of condensing the playerbase.
    • schild wrote:

      Yea, I heard his answer.

      Acting out of fear is terrible.

      He's ignoring what is possibly the largest format on Earth (and certainly the largest casual format, of ANY card game) because it might take 30 seconds longer to trigger a constructed match or something?

      That's what I'm talking about when I say waiting longer to implement it is absurd. EDH feeds competitive formats. Competitive formats don't feed EDH. It's expansion, the act of condensing the playerbase.
      Right, and you aren't going to get a new response by asking the same question.

      If you approach from a different angle and frame it as a segue into Constructed/Immortal, then you might get some attention. I agree that a gateway non-limited format would be invaluable for newer players who find building a Constructed deck in one fell swoop daunting.
    • After giving this more thought, I ended up writing an article on existing formats and developing a casual format for Hex. It's mostly written from the perspective of "how would it be beneficial for both Hex Ent and its players?" It also points to this thread at the end for discussion, so hopefully it piques some interest.
    • I would make a few changes to your suggestion and call it the Lieutenant format (Hex Lieutenant Format)

      1. Decks are exactly 100 cards, including 1 Lieutenant (99 other cards)
      2. Your chosen Lieutenant must be a Troop during Deckbuilding (if it transforms into a troop it is not valid.)
      3. Your chosen Lieutenant must be named.
      4. You may use only one copy of each card in your deck (deck must be valid for Singleton)
      5. You may only include cards whose shards match the shards on your Lieutenant and Champion. If a shard is present in the Charge power cost of your Champion or on the Lieutenant you have chosen then it may be in your deck, otherwise it cannot. Cards which are shardless can always be used.
      6. Your Lieutenant begins play in the same out of play zone as your Champion.
      7. Champions get "(Lieutenant's Shards) [X] -> Play your Lieutenant, if it is not Unique it becomes Unique. Increase this powers cost by +1." where X is equal to the cost of your chosen Lieutenant and the shards to activate also match your Lieutenant's shards to play.
      8. Champions get an additional 20 Health
      9. Any damage dealt by your Lieutenant is considered Lieutenant Damage and if this value exceeds 20 then the player with 20 or more Lieutenant Damage loses the game.


      Thats my two cents anyways, why copy MTG when we can add more to it like keeping Champions and adding that extra layer of complexity and build options along with your choice of Commander. I personally don't like the rules about the card having to be Legendary because that bottlenecks things and the distinction between Legendary and not is often not great, Hex has even fewer Unique options and it makes sense to me to just axe it. The Uniqueness comes from the Champions, your choice of Lieutenant should be any troop you have access to.

      The card being given a name prevents it from eliminating identical troops even though the idea is that it just can't be played in multiples so it prevents you from playing several but doesn't interrupt your opponent for no sensible flavor reason. It also makes your choice a bit more unique as you can't name the champion but you an name your Lieutenant.
    • Utremeld wrote:

      Thats my two cents anyways, why copy MTG when we can add more to it like keeping Champions and adding that extra layer of complexity and build options along with your choice of Commander.
      This is a very good idea. In my past history, I've seen numerous 'amazingly popular gamemodes' fail when transferred unaltered from one game to another as a secondary format. These types of game modes are frequently built on something unique to the game and thus when you transfer them a bit of that is lost. But if you take the heart of the game mode and build something new out of it, like what you've suggested, it seems more likely to be the success people want.

      Utremeld wrote:

      You may only include cards whose shards match the shards on your Lieutenant and Champion. If a shard is present in the Charge power cost of your Champion or on the Lieutenant you have chosen then it may be in your deck, otherwise it cannot. Cards which are shardless can always be used.
      In your idea, what would you do about champions like Uzzu or the shardless set 6 champs?
      Gamer. Streamer. Photographer. Writer. Anime Lover. Possessor of Stuffed Animals.

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


      Utremeld wrote:

      You may only include cards whose shards match the shards on your Lieutenant and Champion. If a shard is present in the Charge power cost of your Champion or on the Lieutenant you have chosen then it may be in your deck, otherwise it cannot. Cards which are shardless can always be used.
      In your idea, what would you do about champions like Uzzu or the shardless set 6 champs?

      Uzzu is shardless but I would consider the ability to create any Shard viable justification for it to be specifically exempted and given the ability to be five shards. Other shardless champions would simply not offer a shard and any shards must come from their Lieutenant. I would also allow PvE Mercenaries to be Champions for this mode and many of them have similar issues where they do not offer a shard identity but this is much less crippling when you have a second source of them via your Lieutenant.
    • Utremeld wrote:

      Other shardless champions would simply not offer a shard and any shards must come from their Lieutenant.
      Seems punitive when they have a clear identity. Perhaps restrict, for example Marzul, by faction rather than shard? He's clearly an Ardent champion, so it might work to let him only play ardent troops or actions that are directly ardent tied(allegiance, conscript, only affect ardent), unless it is in the shard of his lieutenant?
      Gamer. Streamer. Photographer. Writer. Anime Lover. Possessor of Stuffed Animals.

      Also... I'm terrible at this game.
    • That would get more complicated and require more judgement calls per champion which adds rules baggage. The purpose of a format is to have a consistent set of rules that apply universally with few, if any, exceptions so while I am fine making an exception for Uzzu I am not comfortable making more of them or deciding deck building limitations for every Champion. The deck building limitations of Mercenaries would be pretty sufficient to balance their power compared to other Champions and they don't need to offer additional shard identities.

      Most champions offer one identity and most troops will offer 1 or 2 on average so most decks will be two shards as the Lieutenant will likely match the Champion or 3 if they do not. When you allow 4 or more without sacrifice you can quickly come up with a "best deck" problem because everyone can play every shard and choose the best cards from them which is not ideal. Hell, I might even just make Uzuu shardless and if you want to make use of his power you need to pick one of the Midnight cards are your Lieutenant (which you would probably do anyways.)

      Faction restrictions are interesting but if Mercenaries are included then they already exist, if Marzul doesn't have a deck building restriction then it shouldn't be added on because of the format beyond what the format needs to maintain it's own health. There is a balancing act in game design and I personally feel that the rules being as uniform as possible is the right way to err on this particular subgame.
    • Utremeld wrote:

      I would make a few changes to your suggestion and call it the Lieutenant format (Hex Lieutenant Format)

      1. Decks are exactly 100 cards, including 1 Lieutenant (99 other cards)
      2. Your chosen Lieutenant must be a Troop during Deckbuilding (if it transforms into a troop it is not valid.)
      3. Your chosen Lieutenant must be named.
      4. You may use only one copy of each card in your deck (deck must be valid for Singleton)
      5. You may only include cards whose shards match the shards on your Lieutenant and Champion. If a shard is present in the Charge power cost of your Champion or on the Lieutenant you have chosen then it may be in your deck, otherwise it cannot. Cards which are shardless can always be used.
      6. Your Lieutenant begins play in the same out of play zone as your Champion.
      7. Champions get "(Lieutenant's Shards) [X] -> Play your Lieutenant, if it is not Unique it becomes Unique. Increase this powers cost by +1." where X is equal to the cost of your chosen Lieutenant and the shards to activate also match your Lieutenant's shards to play.
      8. Champions get an additional 20 Health
      9. Any damage dealt by your Lieutenant is considered Lieutenant Damage and if this value exceeds 20 then the player with 20 or more Lieutenant Damage loses the game.


      Thats my two cents anyways, why copy MTG when we can add more to it like keeping Champions and adding that extra layer of complexity and build options along with your choice of Commander. I personally don't like the rules about the card having to be Legendary because that bottlenecks things and the distinction between Legendary and not is often not great, Hex has even fewer Unique options and it makes sense to me to just axe it. The Uniqueness comes from the Champions, your choice of Lieutenant should be any troop you have access to.

      The card being given a name prevents it from eliminating identical troops even though the idea is that it just can't be played in multiples so it prevents you from playing several but doesn't interrupt your opponent for no sensible flavor reason. It also makes your choice a bit more unique as you can't name the champion but you an name your Lieutenant.
      This is... closer to EDH than what I posted, and more complex? The point of the original post is 3-fold:

      • To lay out a way to implement "EDH" in a capacity that requires nearly no engineering
        • In order to keep the format as "already implemented" as is possible
      • To get it done as fast as possible so, as so many designers put it, "people can play how they want to play"
      • To have EDH.
      There's nothing stopping them from adding or making a more complex / official version later. That we're waiting this long for a stupid deckcheck on a format that exists only in a "challenge player" right-click scenario is pushing the edge of silliness.
    • Long story made short - I want full, proper implementation and believe it would look closer to yours than to mine. Or at least have "added" gameplay, like a Lieutenant (Elder Dragon, etc).

      But low-hanging fruit is better than no fruit.

      "We're looking at formats and don't want a different queue" is a non-answer (from Cory's stream).
    • If we really want a minimum on Engineering we just need to be able to pick Wild West in private challenge and also a starting health multiplicator option there.
      With these two options well have a wide variety for casual gaming and like normal casual gaming you dont need a queue for it but just a way to talk to other people which we have. Just need to believe in your opponent to keep to the restrictions.