A new test build is up! This is likely to be the final release build before the new year. It features our holiday special, which is fully described in this blog post. In short, there should be new items, new figures and new board decorations for multiplayer. As well, we've got the latest edition of Mauve Manticore, featuring all new user generated battles! And, as a special surprise, look out for Cardotron 2000 in multiplayer! I should also add, those of you who pay attention to our development twitter feed probably know that we're working on a TON of other new stuff which hasn't been announced yet. Let's just say there will be new multiplayer formats and LOTS of new single-player content along with other goodies in the new year! In the meantime, we'd love if you can help test this build. Holiday Specials Added holiday store and items. Added holiday figures. Mauve Manticore Added MM2 and MM2 supplement. MM1 unlocks on completion of MM2. Deck Builder Usable prompt clarifies whether item is unusable due to class or race. Multiplayer Added Cardotron 2000!
Can play MM2 supp. before MM2, and completing the supplement unlock MM1 even though MM2 wasn't completed, wai ?
Heck yes, I've held my tongue since I wasn't sure how much you wanted anything spoiled - even if the donkey is open to the public.
I played through the Manticore scenarios and I am somewhat disappointed. Wedding chapel looks nice, but the gameplay isn't anything special. I was wondering all the time why I played these three boring heroes instead of my regular party. The summoning part1 felt like filler. A very easy scenario, but at least you got an interesting mix of heroes. Summoning part2 was nice and the difficulty balance felt right. However the map looked kind of borked with all the black squares and there were spaces behind the portal that were blocked terrain even though they looked just like some of the regular terrain that you could walk on. Manticore2: The games was terrible. Sorry to say it, but the maps had several problems: -The concept is not great, most of the time you have several matches finished and you have to discard their draws every round and wait until the AI shuffles their minions around. It would work much better with only 3 or so arenas. -The matchups are terrible (are they randomized? Maybe I had some bad luck): Zombie has no chance vs anything, especially not sniper. Wyvern vs Wyvern is terrible due to grounding plates, but in general Wyvern easily beats everything. Burning skeleton beats everything except wyvern, due to getting 2 draws. Monkey is the only fun monster of the lot. Cardotron AI is very unfun to play against. The deck has comically overpowered cards, but the AI is absolutely terrible at using them(I am 6-1 at the moment with my barebones testserver deck). This makes for a very unsatisfying game experience, because it is all about hoping the AI draws its dud cards and exploiting the stupidity. Additionally the optimal strategy is very easy: Freeze the warrior, stay one square away from the cleric. Avoid line of sight from the wizard. Pickoff one guy whenever the opportunity presents itself. The following cards should not be used by the current state of the AI: Counterspell, Team Heals, Impenetrable Nimbus.
I realize the last post was very negative without offering constructive criticism, so here goes: Changes to MM: I would exchange Wedding Chapel for Master's Manor. Properly positioning dogs vs slow dwarves is much more fun than kiting stupid warriors with your ranged mage and bashing clerics. Both are by LeisureSuitLoli, so no problem there. Changes to MM2 the games: This needs fun monsters that are interesting to play instead of in-your-face attackers. Keep the monkey and sniper, drop the rest and add novice geomancer, war dog and flying monkey. As for AI: I would like to see you guys try out an approach like here: https://forums.cardhunter.com/threads/designing-a-better-deck-for-highlevel-mp-ai.4727/ instead of just throwing overpowered cards together without considering how the AI works.
The problem with trying to design an AI that is challenging without resorting to cheating (card, power, whatever you want to call it) is a really really difficult problem. If you dont give them overpowered cards, I can almost guarantee you that any non cheating AI could be easily beaten with 2 warriors and 1 priest full of nimbus.
Some cheating is ok (I do some cheating in my link), but the cardotron AI fails in two aspects: 1. It cheats obviously by using tons of cards that players do not have access to, which feels unfair. 2. It uses cards that the AI does not understand at all turning them into wasted draws, or in the case of counterspell even into a negative draw. This makes the AI very inconsistent. You have these wild swings in turns, where some turns cardotron does not draw anything useful at all and some turns he draws his combo from heaven. As long as the AI does not understand Nimbus, no matter what cards you give it, any AI can easily get beaten by your warrior/cleric combo. So that does not make for a very good test of what makes a competitive AI. I am also not that concerned how strong the AI is. The main objective should be to create an AI that is somewhat fun to play against and offers some challenge. Currently cardotron fails in both aspects.
Ok, here comes some highly critical feedback where I focus on all the negative things I can dig up. I was excited about Mauve Manticore because I like the first one but this #2 was quite disappointing to be honest. In MM #1 we had unique, and more importantly fun, scenarios that, apart from the last one, had a lot of replay value. I have finished the first 2 scenarios many times, I wouldn't have a problem with finishing them again. I don't see that happening with MM #2. Here's why. Mauve Manticore #2 Simply put, I did not find these 3 scenarios all that fun. I managed to finish them because I had to in order to write this post, but I probably won't be playing them again. Wedding Crashers Best thing about this scenario is the map. It's simple, yet beautifully designed. I also like the wedding theme. Nothing to complain about those. Worst part is the gameplay. Not only is the gameplay a bit boring because of your boring team, it's also too difficult. When this scenario was first posted, I suggested that it could be changed so that all 3 people in your team have to survive. I suggested this because it fit the theme of wedding being off if a key participant dies, and it would also make the gameplay a bit different. It was a terrible suggestion on my part because now the scenario is 10 times more annoying. You basically have three weak characters dancing around two enemy heavy-hitters and one super priest. It took me 3 tries to finish this, and none of the matches were what I would consider "fun". How to fix it? Well, tweaking the characters a bit might take down the difficulty and make it a bit less annoying. But the problem is that it would still be a very basic match between pretty boring characters. It kind of reminds me of newbie MP where there is no real deckbuilding and everyone just takes random, weak cards. We don't get to use any new cool characters or cards, only a weak version of what we have already played a thousand times. Simply put: the gameplay kills a great map. Summoning 1 This scenario does not have any major flaws but it doesn't offer anything amazing either. It's a good scenario considering it was the first one the designer ever made, but it left me wanting for something more. It suffers from the common "just kill everything that moves" in a map that is not unique enough to offer any strategy options or anything like that. It's just a basic hack&slash with various characters. Summoning 2 This was a bit more interesting because you get to control a big monster. Unfortunately the map was too similar to the first map, which made it a bit repetitive. It's also missing control squares imo. The combat also a bit.. meh, but maybe others like it, I don't know. I'm not saying that Summoning is a "bad" scenario, but I don't think it's unique enough, which I understood was supposed to be one of the main factors that the devs are looking for? Mauve Manticore #2 Supplement Games 1, 2 & 3 This was hands down the best of the bunch. I really love the concept. I love the fact that matchups are random, which is something I didn't know was even possible, although looking at it now, it was pretty obvious that it's possible. I will definitely use this random positioning myself at some point. I had three main issues with the scenario. 1. Creatures I think that tuknir could have picked better creatures because power levels are way off, for example Wyvern will probably stomp everyone else. I also think that Zombies are too slow-moving for this kind of thing. Lastly, one major issue is that some creatures are perfect counters for other creatures, for example Skeletons having Only Bones etc. 2. Map is too large The map is so large that I couldn't see everything without moving the view all the time, and I have a 1920x1080 resolution. With laptops, this issue is even bigger. I think that the 5th map (and those 2 creatures) should have been removed to make the map a bit smaller. 3. Too repetitive Why are there three identical scenarios with all the same creatures? For me the first one was great, second one started to feel repetitive, and the last one was pure grinding. I don't see why it should be identical when you could easily change the maps and/or the creatures, maybe so that the amount of creatures increase as you go forward? As a conclusion I would say that the concept is perfect but the execution needs a bit of work. All-in-all it was a good experience though. Too bad I missed this one when it was posted and didn't have a chance to post some feedback before it was published. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I would be interested in knowing if these scenarios were in fact the "winners" of all those that were submitted in time for MM #2, or if there are multiple "winners" and these just for one reason or another happened to be implemented first? Either way it would be nice to get some official comments on this. I'm asking because I would have bet big money that I would have seen Temple Terror (and maybe one or two others) in MM#2 because it's more polished, fun, and superior in pretty much every possible way. If Temple Terror was the loser here, there must be some unwritten rules that we are not aware of, or maybe I'm just losing my mind? Btw no offence to the designers of these MM#2 scenarios. Hopefully my critical feedback won't sound too much like bashing but I tried to be as honest as possible. Keep in mind that what I said here are just my personal ideas and others might see it differently, especially since luck of the draw can change the scenario experience dramatically.
Emphasis mine. I made a thread about this. I think the inability of the AI to avoid attacking nimbused characters is probably the critical flaw with AI in the PvP right now. As for the Mauve Manticore stuff, I really like the scenarios that got in, but I can see why turin and SLG are down on them. I'll just say I'm happy that we're not losing MM#1!
I think it would be better if the blog link in the loading News screen opened a new window instead of killing Card Hunter. It's annoying having to reload the game after you follow the link.
For what it's worth my 6-1 record was without using Nimbus, so even if you do not use it cardotron does not present that much of a challenge due to his stupidity in using his cards.
this i dont undertand.. 3 identical scenarios? can you elaborate? the original games was just 1 map with 5 arenas on it I know the Games, is bit hard to track, in small monitors , thats why i made the games:tag team edition, solved that problem since its just one arena and 2v2 random fights. the games was just a silly idea to get random fights, never tought it might actualy be selected... i think i will get much hate because of it
I don't know if you've already seen it, but Mauve Manticore #2 Supplement has its own link (you could basically call it MM#2.5), and has 3 scenarios. All those 3 scenarios are the same map, your Games scenario, with 5 arenas. They are not 100% identical because the starting positions are random, but everything else looked identical to me, and random positioning is not enough to make them unique. I liked the fact that there were multiple arenas but 5 was too much (for me) because it was the 5th arena that was "outside" my screen. Had there been only 4, it would have been perfect. 4 arenas has the added benefit of not being overwhelming to the player. In my opinion it would have been better had it been like this: 1st map: 2 arenas 2nd map: 3 arenas 3rd map: 4 arenas This way there would have been a logical progression and the difficulty and the epicness would have gradually increased.
didnt seen yeat... still lv 3 at test server hum actualy the 4 arenas maybe was ideal.. but i dont undesrtand why put the games in 3 identical parts. was that intended? or a bug? think it could be just one, or if the concept was liked , the tag team version maybe would be better? it actual was divided in 3 adventures where each adventure was a arena where 2 v2 teams would fight (again random selected teams)
It was intended because the flavor text said something like "lets go again..". I guess the idea was to have 3 scenarios so that you'd have to work for that final loot, and instead of using 3 different scenarios, they just recycled the same one. Makes sense I guess, but I found it repetitive.
