Although I don't have objective data to back this up (*cough* API *cough*), I want to muse about how certain classes of builds dominate other classes of builds. At present there's a decent amount of variety in the metagame, which is nice, but each strategy tends to enjoy either an extreme advantage or deficiency. Maps also play a huge role in favoring one kind of build over another. One of the reasons I switch my build so often is that I can usually predict the outcome of my own matches after the first couple of rounds due to familiarity with build archetypes and extensive play experience. Very few of my matches ever reach a nail-biting finish. An unfortunate consequence of this predictability is ennui, which led me to construct X-Strike. I enjoyed this build because it nearly always culminated in a terrific finish. Since the build takes several rounds to go off, both players are holding a close-to-optimal hand when combat begins. That one round of combat would often then resolve quickly in tense combat over 1 or 2 victory points, as the surviving characters rely on top-decking a finishing blow. (Sometimes, if my opponent would falter and back off, I had to press the attack in order to avoid sitting around until we drew optimal hands again.) Overall, combat was vastly more exciting than that encouraged by the typical set of builds which focus on halting, denying, and isolating your opponent rather than surging together in sheer, unstoppable force. Soooooo..... anyone have similar builds that make combat interesting again? (Another way to achieve the effect I want is 5-minute blitz, which doesn't leave time for lots of calculation. Instead of waiting for the board-clearing effect of both players have optimal hands, blitz jumps straight to the aftermath where you're relying on managed luck, adaptability, and quick thinking.)
Aren't all three warrior builds pretty much like this? Either lots of NS or some NS combined with max damage (both with all the team movement you can get) for a quick swarming attack. No use waiting until the other player has all her/his best cards in hand. Go all in and quickly wear them down -- or not, in any case it's all over fast.
But I don't want merely fast combat (sorry that wasn't clear), I want tense combat, where I'm excited to top-deck the right card and every single decision matters. A blind warrior rush will either take out the opponent before they have anything good or else quickly be locked out. That's boring play. I enjoyed X-Strike so much because both players have an optimal hand and are throwing their absolute best at each other. Even though I was using a ridiculous 1-hit KO combo, my opponent could often come back and take out one of my own characters.
I know this isn't exactly what you're looking for, but here's a possible custom game twist you could try if you could find someone willing to run it against you (just thought of this so I don't actually know how it would play out): Both players run a 1/1/1 build and agree to 3 matches. In each match each character of player 1's build is pitted against a single character of player 2's build and visa versa. This essentially creates 3 simultaneous 1 vs. 1 games going on on the same board. Under no condition is a player allowed to do an action with a character that will effect an opponent's character other than the one that they are pitted against that game. - (This would eliminate any "effect all" enemy cards such as WW, WWE, and FS. However, I think I would allow terrain attachments as long as they are not put directly under a non-pitted opposing character.) Over the three games you would play: Wiz v. Wiz Priest v. Priest War v. War Wiz v. Priest Priest v. War War v. Wiz Wiz v. War Priest v. Wiz War v. Priest Most total victory points over all three games win. Things to be worked out: Do you play with victory squares? (I think it could be interesting both ways.) Do you allow equipment changes between matches? (I'd lean toward no.) What maps would be best to play on? (I'd start with PvP maps and go from there.) Are one's characters allowed to do actions to help allies, or is it a purely segregated game? (I lean toward allowing it.)
That's a cool idea! I would like to try that out, although I feel like it may be a dwarf-dominated affair. Random question: When playing ranked and/or casual MP, can you actually play with less than 3 characters in your party or will it stop/warn you? Just curious.
It is possible to play with less than three characters in multiplayer. I've played with only one character in my MP party on the test server. It did not go well against the AI's three characters.
Thanks Jarmo. Back on topic, the current nature of the Card Hunter drawing/hand limit system is the cause of our current game strategy. It doesn't make sense to wait for an "optimal hand", instead it works better to play 1-3 cards from each character, each turn, whittling down your opponents and ganging up on a character if possible.. since you can only keep 2 cards per round, and you only draw 2 cards from your deck each turn! I would like to know if changing the rules would make gameplay ... different? Better? You know what might be tense? 1VS1 games. You take 1 character and fight 1 character. Live turn-by turn with whatever they draw.
I think it would be awesome to modify draw/hand-size rules so that a 20-minute game could have, say, draw 1 / limit 4. This is much closer to what you'll find in MtG or Hearthstone. For 5-minute blitz, where you want chaotic action, it would be much better to have draw 3 / limit 1, I think.
