Class-based Guaranteed Draw

Well, as someone who has played Dungeon Crawls / Turn-based Strategy games since C64 days I still have to agree with the others - any more guaranteed draws would already detract from the feel of the game.

Even though I sometimes have to retreat because the heroes didn't get enough attacks, I've never felt the game is too random. And having to make contingency plans around the unknown factors is what makes a game strategic instead of just a logic puzzle.

 

I have yet to see a satisfactory argument for how this would "detract from the feel of the game." All of the usual random elements would be in place. You'd simply have one (1) more option. Mathematically, I'm talking about taking a hand that is 75% random and making it 60% random. You're still drawing 3 random cards, exactly the same amount of random cards as before.

So again I ask, why does this ruin the feel of the game?

 

I like the idea with talent trees the more options the better

 

I get where you're coming from, because I get annoyed when I really need my warrior to deal damage and he gets two turns of only armor and block cards. But one extra card a turn would totally change the balance of the game. It means 4 extra damage per turn or 2 extra healing per turn. And there generally aren't that many fights with enemy priests, so the battles will be a lot shorter.

You only draw 2 random cards a turn, so this would mean that half the cards you drew would be predetermined. More importantly your attacks in a round (and your opponents attacks) will go from 100% random to only 66% random, which will make the game easier to predict and less tense. It also makes blocks worth less, because you are more likely to have a weak card you can use to get rid of the block before your powerful attacks. On the other hand, armor is going to be worth a lot more, because more attacks will mean good armor will prevent more damage. So a lot of cards would have to be changed to make the game balanced.

I don't think it would make the game more strategic either, because there will be fewer circumstances when you have to adjust your strategy mid-game. It would definitely make the deck-building strategy less important, because less of the cards you play in a game will actually come from the equipment you've chosen. I know it seems like guaranteed attacks wouldn't be much different than guaranteed moves, but the too are not actually all that similar.

 

Total quote on what SurgeonFish said.
Been thinking about it for a couple of days on how to frase that and what he wrote is just perfect

 

Welp, this clearly isn't going to win any popular support. I'm guessing this group of players really loves CCGs? I still feel like I'm right, here, that it doesn't hurt the game and that it takes some of the swings out of draws. But I guess that's what people love? Meh, maybe Card Hunter just isn't for me, because "keep retrying until you get a good hand and the dice decide to help" doesn't sound very fun at all.

I know SurgeonFish says it gets better with better cards but, really, you want new players to slog through the opening game just so they can exercise some control over the game? Okay. Fine. Sucks by me, but fine. Like I said, maybe this game just isn't for me. It looks like a tactical/strategy game. It tries to act like one. But maybe it's not really supposed to be one.

So cool. I've got nothing more to say in defense of this idea, so this'll be my last post in the thread. Thanks for the feedback, guys.

 

Does that mean you won't be using your beta account anymore??

 

I hope I didn't appear too antagonistic in my responses. I just strongly disagreed with the suggestion, that's all. And it looks like I'm not the only one by a longshot.

And for the record, as you might have read in other posts of mine, I have had experience with the low AND high level cards in this game, so my opinion comes from as much experience with the game as anyone else in here, despite not yet having my own beta account.

Soon, soon....

 

The bold text says it all. You're not right or wrong, just that you are in the minority of opinion in this matter.

That last statement just isn't true. This is a deck-building game and as such, not only do your cards get better as you play, but your understanding of how they fit together changes too. It is still perfectly acceptable to sometimes not draw the cards you want or get the dice rolls you require. That's the nature of games in general and this one in particular.

Most every game is a tactical/strategy game, even Monopoly and Ludo. Ones that are based on one mechanic (the dice roll) like Snakes and Ladders are not. This game is not Snakes and Ladders.

You're welcome. Please don't throw your toys out of the pram due to this. Play the game!

 

I am even on the far other side of the camp to the point where I'm not sure i like the base move each turn. If i didn't feel it helped the racial difference and enhanced the game that way i would even be against that. So TLDR as much carddraw randomness as possible is good for a ccg in my opinion.

 

Mark Rosewater (lead designer for Magic: the Gathering) in his weekly design column has defended the lands mechanic of M:tG by pointing out that players not being able to draw lands makes every game matter, and makes any player be capable of defeating any other player. He points out that many other CCGs have come out that have tried to "fix" the "resource-screw" problem, but they only make their game worse. The random element of the game is a GOOD thing for the game, otherwise it would turn into chess, where the superior player always wins. This may sound like a noble goal, but part of the fun of the game, part of what makes it so alluring (to both expert and new players) is the feeling that you could win (or lose) ANY game. New players have a chance at beating the best players in the world, and the best players have a greater challenge in trying to "solve" the game because they have the element of randomness to combat (by deck building choices, or play decisions).

The same is likely true for CH. I don't want the randomness "taken out" or "diminsihed". It's part of the beauty of a card game.

 

It occurs to me that the OP may have a bit of a point in regards to a single player experience. Losing to random computer because you can't draw a good card 5 turns in a row is a bit "feel bad" in a way that losing to another player int he same manner may not be. That said, as others have pointed out, this is likely a problem that is fixed by leveling up out of the "bad" cards, and I think the suggested fix is bad for multiplayer play. Will some players be discouraged away from the game in the short period between the start and when they can level out of this problem? Perhaps. Is it worth a drastic change to the game? I don't think so.