Suggestion: Making this game more like other turn based strategy games, without losing the soul.

Extra card would also mean +50% damage on average per turn. Lots of balancing in there. After that balancing, feel of the game would still be pretty much the same. Random draw + movement. Use movement to accomodate the random draw. Doesn't really matter if it's 2 cards or 3. But depends lot on how the balancing is done.

Small enemy decksize is actually good thing. Makes them less random and more predictable. Edit: easier to tune also, although deck size is in itself part of the tuning.

But yeah, this is more Tactical combat game than CCG.

 

It actually makes you 25% more powerful unless we are stating that the move card you draw every turn is not a part of your power in which case you are stating we are guaranteed a dead card every turn, which isn't entirely true now is it?

 

Pengu1n, while this is not something that has existed before I can in fact separate it's elements and determine that the cards are used as a medium to deliver attacks instead of the usual static guaranteed weapons in a typical turn based strategy game, making the weapons you use randomized.

To point out, I could turn X COM Enemy Unknown into card hunter, by making every weapon, smoke bomb, medical kit, grenade launcher, various levels of weapon grades guns and lazers and shotguns, into something that is given to the player once every round drawn in numbers of two, and a guaranteed movement card based on class, and the amount of what weapons you have would depend on say the quality of gear I have equipped to my soldier. It would still first and foremost be a turn based strategy game.

We are dealing with a turn based strategy game, and adding an extra card to the player deck versus an enemy deck that is not only smaller, but is more guaranteed it's better cards is more a matter of an idea to potentially make things fairer and is simply a feedback suggestion.

 

+50% more damage on average, translate it into power however you like Movement card doesn't have actual damage capability so it can be ignored.

 

I think you're trying too hard to fit Cardhunter into pre-existing image of your "perfect turn based game"... It has different mechanics and hence needs a bit different tactical approach.

 

I didn't say it was a different tactical approach I said that this game, is in fact, first and foremost a turn based strategy game, and nothing further then that. If you would like to debate with me on that point I would ask how it is not first and foremost a turn based strategy game.

Having other elements does not dismiss what it is at it's core.

If you would like to say it is not a turn based strategy game at it's core, I would ask you to point out how it is not.

Edit: I pointed out it uses a different medium as it's means of delivering attacks more then once as well.

 

To point out Pengu1n I am not missing the point as to why the monster decks are small. I think you are missing the point of the suggestion, to not make the player feel like they need as much luck.

The enemy need ten turns to get through their deck. we need closer to 18 turns. Predictable or not, even when you build your deck for the situation, which they allow for, you need 6 more turns then they do to get to all the cards you may have built your deck around.

The enemy as far as I have seen, and I have seen up to the level 15 scenarios, very, VERY rarely have trouble drawing what they need to beat you every turn, and have very few cards that cause them legitimate disadvantages. The few that I have seen such as dropped guard, feel like they were added in so the enemy didn't block your attacks every turn and require you to get luck positioning to hit them from the back in every situation where that is a problem.

So let's not pretend enemy ai decks have weaknesses shall we. You have cards you can put into your deck that can beat their deck, their decks themselves very rarely have any legitimate weaknesses.

For example I can't recall the last time I have seen the enemy draw fumble. Ouch and brain burn sure, it hurts them some, but if I could replace all my fumbles with an ouch in my current setup I would do so in a heart beat because it's a few points of damage for a new card.

 

I'd like to repeat this, because I feel exactly the same way. Randomness occurs at every level, and the game ends up feeling entirely beholden to luck. There are things you can do to mitigate it, but the game just feels too luck dependent right now to be satisfying.

 

I forget was this the forum for suggestions and feedback based off observation and overall enjoyment of the game for the sake of making potential improvements, or the forum for stating how perfect the game is as is.

Not every game is for everyone, I get that, I do. But you know what, players I have known for close to 15 years have given up on this game because of some aspects that seem unfair. You yourself made the claim the game does not have to be fair. While you are free to say such this does not make for a good, or even lasting game.

None of what I have said is lacking in factual observation, and I can quote you to prove such.

 

XCom isn't fair, but it's significantly more fair - or more accurately, in my opinion, less random - than CH.

Though to be fair to CH by way of being honest about XCom, I actually started to play XCom again recently. On an early mission, I missed something like four 50% shots in a row and had an enemy hit me at the same rate, crit me, and kill my guy in one shot. I quit playing. That's the same kind of "unfairness" that let me to quitting CH. The difference is I feel like it happens way more often in CH than in XCom.

Personally, I think the issue with randomness is the issue with difficulty. I think if you tamp down on the frustrating randomness, the difficulty becomes a non-issue. As we've noted elsewhere, difficulty alone doesn't make a game painful. It's the way in which that difficulty is executed. I think CH employs too much difficulty by way of frustrating randomness.

As someone else pointed out (forgive me for forgetting who), the devs seem to get this - Gary's brother (his name escapes me) waxes eloquent about the "cold, hard logic of the die," and the fact that you must be willing to kill a high level character if that's what the dice say you should do. At the same time, they also seem to be realizing that that's not really a good way to run a game - Gary's brother is kind of the stand-in for the obsessive, power-game DM who takes the role beyond the point of fun and to the point of, well, punishment. And yet the game itself cleaves to his way of thinking. Doesn't the strike you as an issue?

I, too, don't expect the devs to make the changes I'd like to see this late on in the process, but I ostensibly signed up for beta with the purpose of providing feedback, so hey, here I am. I'm also not willing to spend any more time (or money) on the game as is.

Though, honestly, I think adding one more card to your draw every turn is hardly a major change. It requires effectively zero code changes, and I think the balance issues would be minimal.

I get that it's different, and I get that there are things that I can do to mitigate the RNG to some extent, but it's still there, waiting to completely screw me over. I like random loot. I like deck building. I like card drawing. I like dice rolling. I just don't like all four thrown together, as it creates an experience that feels so very, very random.

 

That's a valid point, and there is also the fact that you have to discard to two which also slightly devalues a three-card draw. However I do think that Move cards in abundance are of diminishing value as you get more (I know I discard a lot more moves than attacks), whereas damage cards don't lose their value however many you have so long as there are monsters to hit. If I were making a deck for a three card draw I'd also reduce the number of step attacks and other movement options in favour of still more damage, because I'd be sure of enough movement.

And bear in mind that if I am (say) 35% more powerful, balancing requires that the monsters increase in power by the same amount. Be careful what you wish for!

 

I agree that thin decks are good for enemies, for two reasons:

1. Enemies are easy to understand (you learn what they have, and they get their special powers and traits with regularity)

2. However much some people dislike randomness, the AI is even less able to cope with a random environment than humans. Granted, it won't get frustrated by bad draws, but it also won't be able to make the most of them.

 

When I lose in Card Hunter so far (L12), I usually feel it's down to bad strategy, not bad luck.

No-attack turns can be unpleasant, but rarely fatal in my experience. I don't usually wade into the middle of the enemy without the cards to kill at least one right there in my hand, so I tend not to find myself in a situation where several mobs with few hits have first shot at me.

Consider before you move what will happen if you draw no attack cards next turn. If that means you will die, you may be making a bad move unless the situation is already dire.

 

The issue is that quite a few maps don't even give you the option to not risk it. You start surrounded or cornered, and you're entirely dependent on the enemy's first turn draws not being overpowering.

A few examples of this on low level maps:

• Slub'Gut's Sanctum map 2: Cramped quarters against 2 lizardmen, each their own group, they can corner you in a single move and their deck is basically all 5 power spear cards, with no attack limit. Against level 5 characters. These guys decide to draw lot of attack cards? You're looking at at least one death first turn. Don't draw enough damage to kill one by second turn? You lost.
• Lord Stafford's Treasure map 3: At level 8, you start cornered in a small room by a guard that has no attack limit per turn. Lord Stafford in the back is prone to spamming Raise The Alarm, letting said guard draw one third to one half of his deck in the first turn. Said deck contains multiples of cards like Impaling Stab and Potent Stab. Against level 8 characters. If you don't draw enough damage to dispatch this guy quickly, you're most likely screwed. I've had a full dwarven party killed by this guy before I could even draw anything worthwhile.

Starting you off in a terrible strategical position that leaves you at the mercy of the draw on turn 1 is something that just shouldn't happen, but that this game does regularly.

 

Thinking about fairness, XCOM is actually lot more unfair. You have to commit to an action and expose your guys before you know the effect of random. In Cardhunter main random element is card draw. So while it might have larger distribution, you can also adapt to it pretty well.

Now, armor and blocks are bit different matter... But as an attacker there's ways around it (unlike random in Xcom) and as defender there's deckbuilding aspect of the game to deal with the issue.