"I guess this is the best place for this comment." I wonder if we will see high level players putting a bunch of high powered cards plus "Backfire"(TM) cards into their decks going for high risk high reward play. I wonder if the Bluemanchu team forsees this being a problem of if they have already had that in mind when adjusting the power of cards. I can see some players in competitive play getting frustrated by spikes of almost unstoppable power for periods of time against these types of decks, or feeling like their enemy is consistently shooting themselves in the foot at other times when their card draws fail on them. Does anyone else suspect this to be a problem or does this add to the flexibility to the gameplay that you guys will deal with?
Personally I hate "levelling" systems. One of the methods my brother and I have used in the past when developing advancement in table top games where we got sick of levelling is to use an "achievement" system. It worked that if we did something that was unique or interesting then we would assossiate a trait or bonus to the character. This helped develop a story and background as well as link the attributes directly to their actual work. We later developed a 3 stage method where you could achieve the achievement a maximum of 3 times to get to the max bonus for that attribute. Finally, in order to make it even more interesting and more realistic we began adding negative achievements. If a character was to do something very stupid or we were really unlucky we would associate a negative attribute (like tripping over their scarf, or clumsy with a knife). I must make a note that we limited each character to only 3 achievements to maintain a special character that was not too broad. While we used this in table to games, it was interesting to see computer games start to pick up achievements soon after we did that. What didn't happen in computer games is linking achievements to character development. Perhaps this is a possible concept to introduce to a computerized card game. All you would need is a card that can be added to your deck when you achieve a certain achievement.
Yes, we've definitely thought of this problem and want to minimise it. A certain amount of luck in your draw is part of a card game, but if games are always decided by who draws their good cards and doesn't get the bad ones then we have a problem. I'm not sure yet exactly how big an issue this is but we have our eye on it.
Im starting to go off topic now but i'll make a decent point here I played a lot of Magic: The Gathering when i was younger and there was definitely a difference in people having all the cards and people having few. I found myself in the middle ground most of the time and so the people that i played with at school i absolutely crushed and when i went to my local tournaments, i was dominated in just a few turns. That kind of thing discouraged me from continuing playing. Though i strongly believe a good player with a strategy should have the advantage, it should be balanced with the overall power/cards of your deck so that even people just starting out should have a chance. Anyway this is just from a competitive view as thats where some people get a lot of their replay from and has little to no bearing on the adventuring which looks like a lot of fun. That is my 2 cents and it sounds like we are gona have a lot of fun with Card Hunter.
I'm a little iffy on whether that is a "problem." High-risk/high-reward can be extreme, but it also can be deliberately controlled. See the Diablo series and those two basic magical powers, fire and lightning: fire does a predictable amount of damage; lightning has a higher maximum damage, but every lightning spell has a minimum of a worthless 1 damage. Both still average out fine through all the random numbers. Particularly, they average out because the numbers are rolled hundreds and thousands of times, so little fluke events on the lightning aren't a big deal. Similarly, any "problem" with this card game could be minimized by designing it to get lots of cards drawn. There was this older discussion: I still find the "stunned" idea to be interesting, but my point here is the "decking out" part. If the game were designed such that players will go through their entire deck in a single game, then the aforementioned "problem" just becomes a pattern of power-waves. This could be done just by boosting everyone's hit points. That's not the most exciting way to do it, sure, but this sort of thing would be easy.
I'm not saying they dont average out to something normal, something that does 10 damage and something that does 5-15 damage still averages out to 10 in the long run. But if your character has 12hp and your constantly hitting 12-15 damage on that flexible card it can be frustrating for someone who is loaded with reliable 10's thus making it slightly unbalanced. Not to say that it wont happen the other way but it can cause an issue and need to be rebalanced. Lot of online games are straying away from this high risk/high reward style of play cause it really is frustrating at times and its not fun for ither side when it swings one way or the other(only when based on luck and RGN though, if its based on skill thats a different story and worthwhile to pursue).
Hence my suggestion for making sure that games last long enough (or cards are drawn quickly enough, or decks are small enough) that all cards, good and bad, get drawn during a game. If a normal player facing a high-risk deck can be sure of surviving the high-power "phase," then said player will get to enjoy the respite during the drawback "phase." To use numbers like you did, suppose everyone simply has 25 hit points. The high-risk deck deals 15 when it gives out all its awesome cards at once, then 5 when it starts feeding drawbacks. The normal player deals 10 at all times. Two "turns" later, both have suffered 20 damage. Then the game has at least gone on long enough that the normal player will have been able to implement strategic movement and suchlike, and won't feel as ripped off when the high-risk draws start up again after reshuffling. Yes, the 15 damage stuff could still start up again immediately upon the reshuffle. But it's statistically less likely when games are long relative to deck size, making this less of an appealing "lottery" for the high-risk deck builder.
This is one of the ways to balance it yes. Only thing is the player needs to be smart enough to realize(or the information presented ahead of time i.e. deck examination of enemy deck) that his enemy has a lot of drawback cards and thus wait to strike while the defenses are down. It is one of those viable strategies and something like that is what changes card advantages to skill advantages which i approve of. The line between [Card Advantage<----------------->Skill Advantage] is very thin, card counting, knowing whats inside of your opponents' deck and skillfully placing your heroes on the board can tip the favor for you throughout the game, but if the cards are all powerful and skill-less then those get negated making a spamfest. I think we probably agree with the same thing, im just being more vocal about having to high shift in variable stats being an possible issue. I do enjoy these little chats with you Sir Knight
Ah ha! I just thought of how the card suites are awesome in this way! Of course the player will know! "Huh, wow, my opponent just completely clobbered me with three Pinning Spear Tosses. Dang. I guess I'll go home now . . . WAIT! Each of those cards said 'Unwieldy Harpoon' on it! This sucker has three Dropped Guards and three Fumbles primed to strike. I'm going to love this." So, yes, being "smart enough" would do the trick. "Knowing what's inside the deck" is easier in this game than in many others thanks to card suites.
Hmm, after mentioning it in this way it sounds a lot better then I thought as well. The only thing we just need to be careful of is multiple equipment cards having similar cards. I.E. Sword, Axe, Dagger all having a "Slash" card then it wont be to obvious unless a specialty card comes out, then it will be obvious. Ho boy this is gona be fun, im excited.
Don't forget that the "origin" of the card is explicitly written on it. So even if, to use your example, Sword, Axe and Dagger all have a Slash card, you can immediately identify which one that card came from when it is played. Knowing the card suites and using that info to guide your play will definitely be an area where expert players can get an edge.
I hadn't even began to think about that as an angle. That is freaking awesome for strategy & tactics. Also, thank you for the tiny tidbit that cards aren't necessarily unique to a given piece of a equipment. That explains how we (as heroes) can use stunning bash.
'S what I said, yo. 'S what dev diary #6 said, yo. Or at least it heavily implied it. "A flaming sword doesn’t just have to be a weapon which does normal damage plus fire damage, it’s a suite of Stab cards with a Fireball thrown in for good measure. And maybe a Parry to round things out. A more defensive weapon might have three Parries and a couple of Stabs." So not only can the exact same Stabs/Parries appear in two places, but a flaming sword could get a peculiar card: a Fireball. One would ordinarily think that a Fireball comes from a magic spell. This is surely included with the sword because it represents the sword's fire damage ability, and people can still get Fireballs through other means.
There's an implication here that comes up in the 'Show Equipment on the Figure' thread as well. If you're holding a sword, until you start thwacking people with it, it's difficult to know what exact sword it is - a basic 'Sharp Bit O' Steel' or 'Stormbringer'. In Player vs AI, that probably won't matter too much and in PvP you've already set your equipment / deck before you start, so knowing that if only you'd packed your 'Spiky Helmet of Doom' which has a suite of 'Tis But A Scratch' damage mitigation cards, instead of the 'Golden Cap of Gygax' which doesn't, is somewhat moot. After you drag your tattered and soulless body out of the dungeon, of course, you'll have the experience to go back with better gear! Which reminds me, is there a death penalty for ending up as a pile of chopped offal?
I'm assuming failing the adventure would be the same as most other games in this era, just the fact that you wasted your time and get to retry. Although you gain the knowledge of how you shouldn't play up to that point
Well, until Dorian gets a new avatar image . . . the penalty is being tossed into the Dorian feeding pit.
