Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Forming an Agenda
#51
(04-09-2017, 05:38 AM)Impronoucabl Wrote: The only reason traditional decks don't exist, is because of the combos. If you take them away, they'll become viable. Non-combo rush decks have always used disruption, since without which, they would be either too consistent & OP, or unreliable & weak.

As for your stance, I thought you wished to have lanir removed from the game in his entirety? Thus the price of lanir is irrelevant? Aside from that, I suppose we are splitting hairs.



EDIT: Your "all things equal" quote is very fallacious, as I pointed also out earlier.

If everything is equal except one thing, then obviously that thing will cause skewed results.

E.g1 If everything is equal except wounding, then wounding will consistently create skewed results. Therefore, wounding is OP.

E.g2 If everything is equal except for an Arthur, then Arthur will consistently create skewed results. Therefore Arthur is OP.

Repeat ad nauseam.

My "all things being equal" quote was a means of quickly describing how large cost/benefit discrepancies are a common cause of OP issues in games. Do you have a clearer, more concise way of describing this to someone who feels that only units that guarantee victory 100% of the time should be considered OP? Because that was the argument I found myself in.

We are in agreement in our assessment of non-combo units.

I do wish gold soldiers had more relevance though. It seems like something as basic as a soldier should be useful in a battle strategy game. What if Tydus had his base attack reduced to 4, but was given a front row ability called 'Valor' [all soldiers receive +1 {or 2} attack]? From a role-play perspective his Valor would inspire other soldiers to be more effective when fighting shoulder to shoulder with him. This might make soldiers useful again. Just a thought.

My stance on Lanir is nuanced. I take specific issue of his use with 'gamble'. Remove the 'gamble' factor and I think Lanir is under priced by just 2-3 gold. I originally proposed changing how 'gamble' worked. I suggested that gambling for gold would fix the problem and make the ability arguably more fun while still retaining its usefulness (particularly in early rounds). But other players prefer that Lanir be changed instead. I'm guessing too many people have gotten used to Flip and view Lanir as the trouble maker. I wonder how players would feel if Lanir had been introduced to Highgrounds prior to 'gamble'. I have said all along that I was advocating for the community, so I immediately stopped pushing for changes to 'gamble' and have supported changing Lanir instead (even though I, personally, like Lanir more than Flip). Something needs to be done to fix this gambling issue. Either 'gamble' needs to be reworked, or Lanir needs to be modified. My order of preference would be:  re-purpose 'gamble', if not then give Lanir a different front row ability, if not then double Lanir's hiring cost.

This thread is a discussion of preferable changes that hopefully will be made to the game at some point in the future. In the meantime, I am in support of creating an environment where players can enjoy Highgrounds without the looming threat of: Eezic, Lanir+gamble, and the sniper bug. Since software patches are not imminent, I've asked Scott if it's possible to set up a separate 'sandbox' for such an environment (where theoretically imbalanced cards would be banned from play). This would seem to be the only solution that would not require unit modifications. I haven't heard back from him yet.

(04-10-2017, 05:37 AM)toorico Wrote: actually I think that toxic is a very good ability at the moment, the problem is: what other thing can that unit do?

So for example:
1# Vago: have a very special toxic ability, but other than that, at least it can produce gold, even if the enemy does not have a wounding unit.
2# Uvil: Can at least defense and produce 3 wood in the back! that is pretty good actually. So no only it give a solid wood income, but it can punish the late heavy base wounding decks.

So the problem comes with the units that have toxic and doesn't do more than that, like noch.
With this say, I think that this falls with the problem with protection, it need to have something next to it so it can be worth it. An example of this is the old unit Herold, that now it is basically obsolete with the new builds and units.

I couldn't agree with you more. Toxic and protect are not good "stand alone" abilities -- which is fine as long as the unit can fulfill other roles. The problem is only with units who can do little else.

But, I think Herold is still useful with Hale. Elgi is a better example of a useless 'protect' unit.
Never argue with a hobgoblin. It'll just amuse him more.
Reply
#52
>Do you have a clearer, more concise way of describing this to someone who feels that only units that guarantee victory 100% of the time should be considered OP?

More concise? No. More clearer? Probably.
Self proclaimed Highlord of Highgrounds

I dare you to say my name properly!
Reply
#53
Man at this point I really don't what to do!!!! XD

TOO MANY THINGS WANT IT TO GET FIX BRO!!!!!! I think that at the moment, all I want to is for the Dev. not to give up H.G, fix the bugs, nerf the units and to get more things.... yea this is not helping......
Reply
#54
(04-11-2017, 04:20 PM)Impronoucabl Wrote: >Do you have a clearer, more concise way of describing this to someone who feels that only units that guarantee victory 100% of the time should be considered OP?

More concise? No. More clearer? Probably.

Perhaps. But, I think I wisely avoided a lengthy debate over the definition of OP. Once I established that Shaymin has a differing philosophy on OP, I moved the discussion on to other topics. I respect his opinion, so there's really no need to litigate it. We have agreed to disagree. The main thing is that we both had the opportunity to express our opinions.
Never argue with a hobgoblin. It'll just amuse him more.
Reply
#55
Dear Legendary Hobgoblin,
thank you for your attempt to reanimate this forum!
I’ll try to give my small contribute to the discussion.

About gamble, I agree with you that, when it doesn’t trigger, it should have a x0 multiplier! But I don’t think that gamble is OP: the problem is Lanir!
I think that Lanir is terribly OP both on front and back row! I often beat Lanir, but only when it’s not used well! And, on the other end, I never use it.
I do not love that much the proposal to double its cost (I’d prefer a nerf to its stats), but I think it’s the only one that could be easily made.

About Eezic, the same! I can beat it, but not when it’s played by decent players (great players usually don’t use it). Maybe that 16 crystal is a more equable cost (even if I’d prefer if reanimated unit’s cost were lawed to 6 or 7)

About Snipe Bug, I think it’s not a big problem: only a few players deliberately use it and I hope they will understand that a good reputation is better than a few dirty victories!

About the continuation of this conversation, I think we should not discuss about little changes to units or similar things: devs will never do those changes! We should, instead, think about some improvement that could make the game profitable: only with an economic return devs will come back to this game! In particular, I think we should think how to make the game better for new players: if they don’t leave the game after few matches, the community would increase and maybe a few more players would buy gems…
Reply
#56
Nonnododo,

Thank you for joining us! Every contribution is appreciated.

You are in good company with regards to fixing Lanir vs 'gamble'. As far as I can tell, I am the only player who would prefer that 'gamble' be re-purposed instead of Lanir. And, that's fine. I accept that. I want us to come up with solutions that the majority of Highgrounds players can support. Though I do appreciate your support of my assertion that 'gamble' should produce zero attack when an attempt fails. Even if 'gamble' is not re-purposed, it seems that zero reward for failure would make more sense from both balancing and game dynamics perspectives. And, for the record, I have said that even if 'gamble' were removed from the equation I still think Lanir is under-priced by 2-3 gold. So we also agree that Lanir is somewhat imbalanced irregardless of 'gamble'. Not changing any game mechanics, but instead doubling Lanir's cost is a last resort proposal. Same goes for Eezic. I think most of us would prefer to see the 'Reanimate' ability function in a more equitable manner. But, if raising Eezic's cost is the only feasible way to fix him, then so be it.

As far as the sniper bug is concerned. It doesn't come up as often as the other two biggest OP issues. But, when it does it can be every bit as frustrating. I honestly don't know which I find more infuriating: when a player relies on it to win, or when a player already has competitive advantage yet they still feel the need to exploit it. Both drive me nuts. In so much as this bug greatly harms the overall Highgrounds experience, I think it cannot just be ignored. It needs to be fixed.

As for the discussion of making tweaks to under-utilized units. None of us are suggesting that is of higher priority than the balancing issues. I think we all agree that the balancing issues should be addressed first. We are simply laying down markers (from the broader community's perspective) that the devs can follow should they decide to work on repairing Highgrounds. It has even been suggested that it may make more sense for Heartshaped Games to recode the entire game on a more modern platform. In which case these suggestions for making more units relevant might prove quite helpful.

I think we should think how to make the game better for new players: if they don’t leave the game after few matches, the community would increase and maybe a few more players would buy gems…

No one has objected to that notion. And, it does seem appropriate to be concerned about new player retention. I tossed out a few ideas in another thread on this issue. For example, players under a threshold skill level (let's say '180') could receive bonus damage for every '3' excessive attack points instead of '4'. That would put victory more within grasp of a new player, but only in situations where they are legitimately competitive.

I don't see any harm in bouncing around ideas of increasing profitability for the developers. Anything that will lure the devs back would be helpful.
Never argue with a hobgoblin. It'll just amuse him more.
Reply
#57
It is once again Dwila Day in the Highgrounds. I have literally encountered only one opponent today who didn't play an Eezic deck. I feel like yanking my hair out! And, once again I'm left with the inescapable moral dilemma: Do I accept losing almost every match, or do I whip-out my own Eezics and become part of the problem? So, far I have resisted, but I don't know how much more I can take of this. I am so burned out on players who rely on Eezic and Lanir.

It is evident that we are not going to get a software solution to the imbalances any time soon. So, I am considering starting a league of like-minded players who would agree to meet up in Highgrounds at specified times every week to play balanced matches (no: Lanir, Eezic, or sniper exploit allowed). It should only take 4-5 of us to get a well-rounded group going. Would you guys be interested in joining me for Highgrounds...the way it was meant to be played? If so, speak up here or send me a private message with your gamer tag, and I'll organize a list of associated players, set up weekly match times, and possibly a homepage for us to refer new players.
Never argue with a hobgoblin. It'll just amuse him more.
Reply
#58
Well I don't use eezic at all, I use to have one, but deleted because there was no fun in it, the other thing that I will need to get rid of it will be Lanir, but to say the true... that is a hard one XD since I actually able to win only because of him. So I could try, actually I'm going to try it right now and see what happen.....
Reply
#59
Since I mentioned in this post that we have had to dedicate time to our new projects, I wanted to share one of the new games we're working on: Brave Hand (http://www.bravehand.com). It's a single player card game for mobile with a unique narrative component. We will be looking for help with Beta testing as well with community translation of the text. If that interests you, you can contact me at contact@heartshapedgames.com to get added to our list.

There is more info and links to some coverage of that game in the new Brave Hand forum as well: http://heartshapedgames.com/forums/showt...p?tid=2770

Thanks,
Scott
Founder, Lead Designer on Hero Generations
http://www.twitter.com/brodiegames
Reply
#60
(08-30-2017, 07:57 PM)scott Wrote: Since I mentioned in this post that we have had to dedicate time to our new projects, I wanted to share one of the new games we're working on: Brave Hand (http://www.bravehand.com). It's a single player card game for mobile with a unique narrative component. We will be looking for help with Beta testing as well with community translation of the text. If that interests you, you can contact me at contact@heartshapedgames.com to get added to our list.

There is more info and links to some coverage of that game in the new Brave Hand forum as well: http://heartshapedgames.com/forums/showt...p?tid=2770

Thanks,
Scott

Sounds fun. I had to take a break from Highgrounds due to school starting up, but a game I can play whIle on the go sounds great.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)