Staleness

Talk about anything regarding the Hidden Dimensions core game and HD Spectrum.
Verden Leafglow
Posts: 107
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 9:07 pm

Staleness

Postby Verden Leafglow » Fri Jun 01, 2012 9:11 pm

This isn't so much a complaint about balance as it is a complaint about strategical maneuvering.


Basically, I am becoming bored with fighting opponents who use any deck color in particular, along with a pile of Chain Lightnings, Ancient Mines, and Ancient Torpedos. That's all I've encountered in all my games today. I've only lost once, but still - the strategical advantages of these cards are so obvious that it's no wonder everyone is using them.

The problem? No variety! As for me, I have simply suspended myself from using any Random deck cards whatsoever, and am restricting myself to colored cards only. The game is hardly any fun if you're essentially battling the same deck all day long. Bleh.

-VL
User avatar
PenneyRZ
Posts: 1391
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:57 pm

Re: Staleness

Postby PenneyRZ » Fri Jun 01, 2012 11:05 pm

Maybe what the game really needs is an increase in deck size.

MTG had similar problems when the max deck size was 40 cards and they moved it to 60 because of that.

Maybe HDS could be moved up to 60-90 or so.
PenneyRZ
User avatar
dark1n
Posts: 493
Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2011 2:09 pm

Re: Staleness

Postby dark1n » Sat Jun 02, 2012 12:23 am

that might bring more deck diversity and force players to use cards that are neglected today...

but there is much simpler solution (similar thing but reverse) - restricting those cheap and overly-versatile cards to 1-2 per deck.
Verden Leafglow
Posts: 107
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 9:07 pm

Re: Staleness

Postby Verden Leafglow » Sat Jun 02, 2012 3:31 am

Uh, I think a better question is - why are cheap/lame cards in the game at all? And why are crappy, horrible cards that would only harm one's deck in the game at all? Every card should have a purpose, every card should have a proper place, which is not too strong and not too weak. Unless cards like Chain Lightning receive [i]massive[i] changes, they ought to be outright removed from the game.
User avatar
http404error
Posts: 283
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 7:01 am

Re: Staleness

Postby http404error » Sat Jun 02, 2012 5:27 am

HD:X is rebalancing all the cards you mentioned.
User avatar
DEEP SPACE
Posts: 1132
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2011 2:10 am
Location: Somewhere on Xyth core.

Re: Staleness

Postby DEEP SPACE » Sat Jun 02, 2012 6:00 am

Chain Lightning is Chain Reaction or Lightning Arc?
:rl: DEEP SPACE :rl:
The Spectralis core.
Now in an Arcane Voidsplitter.
In other words: DEEP SPACE TO THE MAX POWER!


My image collection - My game profile
User avatar
dark1n
Posts: 493
Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2011 2:09 pm

Re: Staleness

Postby dark1n » Sat Jun 02, 2012 11:53 am

Verden Leafglow wrote:Uh, I think a better question is - why are cheap/lame cards in the game at all? And why are crappy, horrible cards that would only harm one's deck in the game at all? Every card should have a purpose, every card should have a proper place, which is not too strong and not too weak. Unless cards like Chain Lightning receive massive changes, they ought to be outright removed from the game.

i fully agree with you. several cards really ruin pvp for me.

first of all - instant kills. cheap, accessible, non-situational, available in 4 copies. they make people - not just me - leave their most-interesting decks for singleplayer.

second - weakeners: Thunder Shard, Terror Mage, Nanobot Swarm, Technomancer... when -1s and -2s start flying around too much, game can get long and boring especially if both sides are trading minuses.

    Thunder Shard functionality should be limited by cost, for example rasing by 1/2 :xy: which would be 0, 0, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4... it could be 1/3 but i would prefer 1/2 to 1/3. and when the cost gets too high, player should have to stop until he can replace it with a new shard.

    for Nanobot Swarm, 2 :rv: is a joke. i know GW is raising it to 3 for HDX but i'd go as far as 4 :rv:.
    as for TM legend, i think -2 each turn is a little too effective. i'd slap a cooldown there or an increasing cost.

    and 8 :xy: 2 :rl: for Terror Mage is a bargain. with its cost and amazing abilities, i think its stats (A:12,D:40) should be reevaluated.

not the whole list but two most important groups for now. also i'd note that the first troubling group (instant-kills) greatly affects the second (weakeners) - instant-kills greatly discourage ship-buffing which is supposed to be in balance with ship-weakening.
User avatar
Wv_Hawk_vW
Posts: 1442
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:02 pm
Location: Cali to Tex to Indiana
Contact:

Re: Staleness

Postby Wv_Hawk_vW » Sat Jun 02, 2012 1:46 pm

i noticed that there are precisely 4 ships with retalliate and 4 ships with resistance. before the base resistance update, there were 6 ships with resistance. now there are 4. before that update, there were 3 ships with paid regeneration; while this isn't immediately after that that update, it we have solved the problem of rare paid regeneration, and now have 8 (and im sure theres more that i missed-- darkwing, taryn'ixia, neyon'moru, shield frigate, shield morph, voidbringer, shimmering ghost, GGD).

in order to solve the rare retalliate problem (as well as the bargain terror mage problem), i suggest we give thunder mage 15 attack (rather than 12) and make its ability deal 4 to all ships (rather than 3), and give it a retalliate of 4. terror mage can go down to 10/30 (want it to last longer? use the :xy: ship yard) and to solve the rare resistance problem, give it 1 or 2 resistance.

and on resistance, the list is pulsar class, guardian, tarynn'ixia, greater rift demon; on resist, the list is breaker class, deflector shield (aka bouncer class), hiraga, mirror shield.
Discord: WvHawkvW#6491.

I am a blast from the past who is rising from the ashes like a phoenix!

Please donate money to Greywing.
User avatar
PenneyRZ
Posts: 1391
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:57 pm

Re: Staleness

Postby PenneyRZ » Sat Jun 02, 2012 3:12 pm

dark1n wrote:
Verden Leafglow wrote:Uh, I think a better question is - why are cheap/lame cards in the game at all? And why are crappy, horrible cards that would only harm one's deck in the game at all? Every card should have a purpose, every card should have a proper place, which is not too strong and not too weak. Unless cards like Chain Lightning receive massive changes, they ought to be outright removed from the game.

i fully agree with you. several cards really ruin pvp for me.

first of all - instant kills. cheap, accessible, non-situational, available in 4 copies. they make people - not just me - leave their most-interesting decks for singleplayer.

second - weakeners: Thunder Shard, Terror Mage, Nanobot Swarm, Technomancer... when -1s and -2s start flying around too much, game can get long and boring especially if both sides are trading minuses.

    Thunder Shard functionality should be limited by cost, for example rasing by 1/2 :xy: which would be 0, 0, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4... it could be 1/3 but i would prefer 1/2 to 1/3. and when the cost gets too high, player should have to stop until he can replace it with a new shard.

    for Nanobot Swarm, 2 :rv: is a joke. i know GW is raising it to 3 for HDX but i'd go as far as 4 :rv:.
    as for TM legend, i think -2 each turn is a little too effective. i'd slap a cooldown there or an increasing cost.

    and 8 :xy: 2 :rl: for Terror Mage is a bargain. with its cost and amazing abilities, i think its stats (A:12,D:40) should be reevaluated.

not the whole list but two most important groups for now. also i'd note that the first troubling group (instant-kills) greatly affects the second (weakeners) - instant-kills greatly discourage ship-buffing which is supposed to be in balance with ship-weakening.


So your idea of balancing the game involves nerfing everything good to the point that everything sucks?

If you don't want to have a fun game, I guess.

Apparently, you never got the memo that people want to play cards that are good rather than cards that suck.

All the balancing effort in the last few years has been directed at making bad cards equal to good cards. Good job trying to undo years worth of effort.

Nanobot Swarm - It used to cost 4 and nobody ever ever ever used it. I realize this is what you want, but having it as your goal to make sure nobody uses this card is pretty stupid.

Cards that you don't like don't need to be costed as to be unplayable, cards that you like just need to be costed better so that they are playable.
PenneyRZ
Verden Leafglow
Posts: 107
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 9:07 pm

Re: Staleness

Postby Verden Leafglow » Sat Jun 02, 2012 5:26 pm

Uh, I would totally use Nanobot Swarm at 4 :rv:. But anyways, that's beside the point.

There's a difference between a good card and an unreasonable card. A Hiraga, for example, is a good card. Chain Reaction is an unreasonable card. There are plenty of good cards and plenty of unreasonable cards.

Actually, at the end of the day, I have to say that I don't mind autokill cards too much. My issue is when you have cards that do more damage than a single card is worth. Ships are unpredictable because we can use them for any number of reasons, but something like Techno Quasar (which I see has been changed) drops two cards for the price of 1, which puts the other player behind a card. That's a BIG difference. That's why I like the new Mind Hack change: the card exchange is one for one, but you can pick a card to knock off the opponent's hand: so it does it's damage and you gain an advantage, but the advantage isn't an outrageous one. That's fair.
User avatar
PenneyRZ
Posts: 1391
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:57 pm

Re: Staleness

Postby PenneyRZ » Sat Jun 02, 2012 5:35 pm

Mind Hack should say the opponent chooses the card they lose, btw Greywing.

All discard cards should work like that.

That makes it strategically useful to hold lands as a precaution against discard effects rather than using them for CIPs.

It also maximally prevents discard from becoming a dominant strategy, which is the most important thing.

Not like discard isn't a completely sad and non-interactive strategy anyway.
PenneyRZ
User avatar
Greywing
Posts: 3090
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 5:47 pm
Contact:

Re: Staleness

Postby Greywing » Sat Jun 02, 2012 5:49 pm

That requires player interaction in the opponent's turn and that's not possible without rewriting vast amounts of code.
SVC - NULLL games.
Found a bug or have a question? PM me or post on the forum.
User avatar
PenneyRZ
Posts: 1391
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:57 pm

Re: Staleness

Postby PenneyRZ » Sat Jun 02, 2012 6:11 pm

Make them do the discard at the start of their own turn then.
PenneyRZ
User avatar
space-mariner51
Posts: 775
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 2:39 am

Re: Staleness

Postby space-mariner51 » Sat Jun 02, 2012 8:31 pm

@ Hawk: Increasing energy price per # of uses is a good idea, but energy generation is way too easy, and quickly get to where the price is meaningless if you can make >10 :xy: per turn, which isn't hard to do.

Return to “Hidden Dimensions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest