[Feedback] MP or SP / Growing & easing in new players

When I say "gold chest" I mean "Golden Chest" as in the Rare+ chest, not the chest you buy with gold.

Oh, so if a chest has a guaranteed Rare the Membership must be Rare or higher... but the main chest could drop a Legendary and the Membership not drop one? Is that what it means?

Why does a module have a Golden Chest then the first time you complete it?

 

Exactly.

I don't know. I remember this came up when we were figuring out the Loot Fairy, the base chests definitely don't guarantee rares.

 

I've tested this (read the linked post and/or thread for more information) and the answer is "because". Still, the chest graphic is the only difference between the first and subsequent completions of an adventure (not counting the ones with a guaranteed special item). You do not get better loot the first time.

 

That's what I meant too. I'll make an effort to say "golden" in the future (this isn't the first time I've found it confusing).

Rare+ is only guaranteed in golden MP chests, quests, and Loot Fairy. The main reason this is confusing is because color is a reliable indication of quality in MP, and people assume it's the same in SP. To be honest, I never noticed SP chests changing color, because I never thought color mattered.

 

Just saw this now thanks to Stexe pointing it out.
@Jon - does a vampire-themed starter party sound appealing to you? I'd be more than happy to throw a list together. Let me know.

 

Didn't want to start a new thread and it seemed relevant to title anyways.

Are we at a critical mass that a SP/new player chat is needed ? Haven't been on live often but the few times I'm in lobby, I've seen questions asked/raised by new players about SP/cards stuff... I know BM doesn't want to fracture the playerbase but given the growth of new adv/cards/items, 1 chat channel might not be enough. Tots ?

 

I allready suggested that, making the MP chat avalaible in SP and I think I wasn't the first. Yes it's needed, makes the game more lively and thus appealing. And besides letting old players the ability to help newcomers with the things they don't understand, it's also nice for those who are boringly grinding the SP maps.

 

I think the suggestion was rather to add channels of some sort, not merely to make a new SP Lobby. Either would be welcome, though I'd prefer channels.

Next up, AIM/GChat/Skype integration and Cardhunter will satisfy all my chatting needs!

 

How about changing "Allow GM Opponents" to "Allow AI Opponents"? I've been seeing a lot of new people confused over what a "GM Opponent" means.

 

Yeah, I've thought about that too.
On Obvious Maneuver it also uses the term "GM" but you WILL get to draw with it when playing against Cardotron so "Allow AI Opponents" would be more correct on that toggle button.

 

Just thought I would pop in and add another perspective to consider from someone who fell in an out of love with this game over a very short period, take it with a grain of salt if you wish.

I definitely fit into the category of players that are only interested in multiplayer. Though I did enjoy the single player experience on the first play through, the thing that motivated me to progress further was always amassing an item pool that would allow me to have more enjoyment and freedom customising builds for MP.

I started playing MP and at first I loved it. My characters were tankier because it took more than a couple hits to die - which often resulted in epic and intense battles that would go back and forth between me and my opponent. Even when I lost games like this I still had a lot of fun. The game was amazing.

Then, slowly, but with an increase in frequency I started to run into tankers. I thought I already had good equipment (good enough to be competitive/have fun at higher levels) but I was mistaken. The major issue for me was, it became too unforgiving. Make a single mistake with positioning and now my character is locked down and either powerless and kited slowly or chopped in half with extremely powerful single strikes.

Before this point I had my warrior charging out in the front line (in my mind - doing what my warrior should do, being the tank and soaking up damage), whereas now I knew that my 'tank' could easily be disposed of in a couple of moves and had to play scared if I didn't want to lose him in a heartbeat.

At this point I felt like I had two options. 1.) Go back and grind single player until I had equipment to match others at my ranking or 2.) Quit the game. I started to farm SP again but playing against the AI in the campaign just wasn't challenging at all (especially now that I had even better equipment than on the first play through) and therefore was a grind. Remember the definition of grinding is essentially doing work (i.e sacrificing short term fun for the long term goal).

The problem here is very obvious to me, you simply cant 'just play MP' (ethically) because the way the damage ramps up compared to character HP at the higher levels changes the core of the experience. It prevents you from having a chance to compete > which leads to getting slaughtered > which leads to players feeling like they need to grind SP to be 'ABLE' to play MP > which leads to people getting bored and quitting if they don't have luck with drops.

If the way the damage scaled up on equipment followed a smoother curve then players with lower item levels could still have a meaningful impact on the game... AND players with better equipment would still have the advantage they worked for (thus retaining the drive to want to hunt the cards in the first place). Win/Win.

I still feel like what this game really needs is someone to focus on balancing the numbers full-time until the magic of the initial experience is preserved. I spoke to Jon and even offered to do this myself for free, with the hope that if the changes lead to prosperity I could potentially be brought onto the team at that point. I'm sure that there are many others who are qualified and would gladly do the same.

I am still waiting for quality of life balancing before I play again. I was and still am sceptical that adding more cards is the answer because now you only have more cards to balance than you did before which only makes the job harder.

 

Was this post a rant against Obliterating Bludgeons?
There's nothing wrong with playing with worse cards than opponents of your level. If that's mostly the case then it means you can play better than them. Sometimes you will get higher rating than what you are worth, nothing weird there. Just accept that you can't stay that high and play on and as high as you can
You will get items over time, Randimar's being your best friend obviously

 

Tons of people have been suggesting changes on the game. I've done what I feel is a lot of the basic work with my balance article, but honestly big hitting attacks aren't the biggest problem in the game (there are many ways to counter them -- a single Parry will 5/6 of the time stop an Obliterating Bludgeon and give you a net 2 card advantage). Also, Blue Manchu can't really currently afford a full time designer. Their margins are pretty low already.

Try Peasant Games (Common/Uncommon Items only). You do run into some heavy hitters (Bejeweled Shortsword / Glinting Eye Hammer), but it is a bit more manageable.

I used to think that the damage ramped up too high (17 damage!) but after I played a lot more it wasn't *that* bad. I do think OB should probably do 16 damage or something so you can't 1-hit an Elf Wizard without any boosts, but that isn't much of a change.

Another thing is you say you "grind single player" to get equipment to compete... what ranking are you? My alt account plays at around a 1400 to 1500 Elo rating and only uses Tezkal Elves Starter Party + Rare and lower items. Most "heavy hitting" items are Rare (Infused Greatclub) or lower. There are a few higher, but it is generally pretty easy to be "on par" with equipment.

 

Thanks for the thoughts, it's definitely helpful to hear additional player's thoughts and experiences. I would note though that I think your experience is going to be the case for everyone in some way due to the elo system. Unless your equipment and skill rise to the point where you can be a #1 in the game (which is possible), everyone is going to have an "elo ceiling." When you approach that ceiling (and even more so if you get a lucky win streak and surpass it) you're going to get some bad beat downs that push you back down. I remember when I hit my first ceiling, I thought: "Dang! I used to be so good at MP! This sucks!" However, I kept with it, learned from other's styles and decks and pushed past the ceiling, but of course only to establish a new one! The point is, it doesn't matter what your equipment is, you're always going to have a ceiling. My suggestion is approach the game as it's fun for you, if you don't like to grind SP, don't grind SP! Doing so isn't going to eliminate your "ceiling experience," it's just going to put that ceiling at a higher elo. If you had more fun playing rush decks, then play a rush deck, on the occasions when you get beat down your elo will drop you back into the realm of opponents where your rush deck is competitive again (which is the same thing that will happen with any other type of deck too - just at a different elo level). So play what you love, don't worry about the losses and know that after the initial easy "beginner's climb" of the elo ladder everyone hits their natural ceiling hard, but once your elo stabilizes you can get down to just playing good ol' Card Hunter!

 

I'd argue that the "Elo ceiling" is only partially influenced by items. A ton of good items can be found that are Rare or lower and you can do very well without the best of the best. You might not get into the top 10, but you can easily make it to 1500+ with just skill.

Think of it like playing Guitar Hero -- everyone has difficulty learning the orange key due to the requiring of shifting your hand position. There is a ceiling that slows your progress down and makes you frustrated you can't "get it" -- but as you keep playing you'll get better and better and eventually break through. It just takes time and practice. I never thought I'd get to the #1 position... my goal was top 100, then top 50, then top 10. Just set realistic goals and you'll slowly hit them and get better and better.

 

Elo is a system that it's not only about the items and the skills you have, but also the builds you are willing to play. There are a lot of very skilled and intelligent players that aren't at the top of the rank (but could easily be there) simply because they choose not to play certain proved consistent builds because they think that those aren't fun to play, and that is more than ok. So it's always reduced to what is fun to each player, because, as Scarponi said, you should take this as it is, a game, not an obligation.

Another thing you cuold ask yourself is what do you enjoy the most: if the part of building decks, perhaps unique decks, or the part of playing them. If what worries you is to break that "ceiling" and you don't care about the building, you can always check the forums where there are a lot of good builds posted, and see if any of them fits you.

 

Yeah, there are a lot of skilled players who aren't at the top of the ladder but do well in tournaments. They play casually or just for fun and don't play "the best deck possible." I wouldn't be playing the best possible either if it wasn't for the season rewards... I'll definitely be seeing my Elo taking a huge hit after next week when I start trying some weird builds. That and I'll probably be streaming my games and doing tutorials on how to improve your gameplay -- that will probably also take its toll.

 

Hah It wasn't specifically a rant against Obliterating bludgeon, but yes, that is one of the many cards I think breaks the magic of what made the game so enjoyable in the earlier levels (I agree though that just adjusting damage values is not enough). I can also see how my post could be taken as someone frustrated at not winning when hitting an elo ceiling but in truth that's not it either. Some of my best matches/memories in this game were losses (It's been a while since I last played but at the time I was floating around the 1300-1400 range).

My problem is not about losing per se, but how you lose.

Stexe, your analogy with guitar hero is a great example of how (in general) determination and perseverance lead to mastery, followed by an increased sense of satisfaction when you achieve your goal. Let’s take that same sentiment and put it into perspective within the context of a competitively oriented game.

The more you play any game the more likely you are to have the 'skill advantage' over your opponent who hasn't played as much, right?

If you were playing guitar hero against a friend who didn't have as much mastery as you did then you might compensate by playing on a harder setting while they played on an easier one. In fighting games like street fighter you might compensate by giving yourself a literal damage handicap so that your hits were weaker and your less skilled opponents were stronger. The whole reason anyone would take these steps is not about winning and losing but rather about the spirit of competition itself.

If you had more experience/mastery and wanted a ‘fairer’ or ‘more competitive’ playing ground you would never consider giving yourself even more advantage would you? Why? Because the end result is one that is not satisfying to either party and ends up being a boring experience. Yet that is what I see happening with CH the way it stands.


TLDR: The point I’m making here is the way items currently scale is very problematic to anyone who wants a continuously satisfying MP experience at a competitive level without grinding at. Here are my biggest reasons for smoothing out the damage curve (pumping up the weak equipment and lowering the strong).

1.) The bulk of the equipment you accumulated in the SP campaign (and everything you gain slowly from MP rewards) would be relevant for longer, creating a situation where you have much more freedom to experiment with viable builds and party compositions. Great for those who most enjoy the party building element.

2.) You lessen the unneeded advantage that veteran players already have against newer players rising in the ranks and create an environment that ensures that games are closer, more competitive and more satisfying. Great for those who most enjoy the competitive element.

3.) You still reward players for card hunting with an advantage, maybe even more so than before because the more cards/equipment you have the greater your ‘real’ options would be for playing the game in a different way while still being competitive. The difference is that the advantage is much less apparent this way. Great for those who aren't necessarily concerned with competition and party building but want to feel like they are continuously making progress - without hitting walls - based on playtime alone.

 

That's what Peasant games are for -- anyone with a bit of time can get all competitively viable Common/ Uncommon (especially now that level 18s are sold in the shop).

And I've been testing my theory that "skill is more important than good items" with my alt account. There's two different types of games though -- one where you want a relatively fair battle and skill to be the determining factor and one where you want to win at any cost no matter the "spirit" of the game. Due to the season rewards being exclusive things it brings out my competitive nature and I play to win at all costs.

Another problem with changing the damage heavily (a few points shouldn't matter) is that it would prolong games. Games can already be pushing 15+ minutes per player... with less damage being dealt there would be more turns and more time required to think. You could argue that it would be less time due to the more forgiving nature of the game, but I don't think it would offset the number of turns.

Your point about having it be more rewarding for people who have a lot of items isn't really true. Since you can't change decks mid-game or before hand your best bet in creating the most competitively viable deck is to pick something that wins against the current meta more average than not. Due to the heavy imbalances towards some items and cards, the meta hasn't shifted in forever which means there's really only one "best" deck. There are counters to said deck, but those counter decks will most likely lose unless facing it.

Also, is the scaling really that far off? You can get 11 damage attacks when you guys are at like 15 life... Look at this level 4 item that is Rare only: Malign Mace

Maybe your idea of what is the low end scale isn't ACTUALLY the low end scale. Throughout my games more people die in 2 or 3 hits regardless of where I am after the first intro levels (where damage is very small).

 

I have known about peasant games for a while and I do like the idea but is it officially supported yet? Does it have a queue finder in the lobby and rewards for playing? Or is it still considered a custom match with no reward?

Victory squares would still do their part in keeping games short but I totally agree that you would not want to prolong games any more than they are already. Honestly though, I don’t link long games with damage at all. When I had weaker equipment the majority of my games were shorter and more action packed.

On the flipside, almost all of the games I played towards the end of my stint (and the higher rated games I spectated) followed very similar patterns. Both players pussyfoot around (no offence intended) because encumber/control effects are too strong and plentiful, you get punished more often than not for making an aggressive move. Once both players lock down and actually fight, it was over very quickly.

I cant really comment on Malign Mace because I cant remember/don't know how it actually scales up against other level 4 equipment. I will say though that I like the design regardless because it has 3 good cards and 3 cards that aren't so good. Its not a consistent performer or an automatic choice. The bad scaling is more prominent in warrior weapons.

In the past I have said that you can’t adjust damage without adjusting control strength at the same time, having high damage against no control is a problem at early levels just as much as having low damage against a lot of control is at the higher end. There is no reason why games at a lower level should be more fun than at the higher levels. The reason why I think that is all boils down to meaningful interaction. You get more of it before everyone discovers how good control is and is also sporting reliably high damage weapons without drawbacks. Unless of course you consider the pre-battle dance as meaningful interaction, I don’t though.

Lastly, about the rewards for having more items, having more toys to play with is always better than having fewer. But - if you have many but only play with a few then there is no difference. The easiest and most logical way to make those unused toys more appealing is to reduce the strength at the top of the chain and raise the ones at the bottom.