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

Maybe there is something to be said for a mulligan option. But I'm not convinced the problem is that bad. I did lose a character on the second turn in one early scenario where everyone started spread around the map with undead (IIRC) everywhere, but I still won it. But in that case it was the attack cards in my hand that tempted me to put the character in danger!

Remember you get three cards on your first turn, so a terrible draw is less likely than on subsequent ones.

If the perfect storm happens and the enemy draws well and you draw badly and contact is immediate and you are placed in a hopeless situation - well, at least it will be over quickly and you will hopefully do better next time.

 

That's a good point too. At the moment having a ton of cards is rare enough that the thrill of having so many overcomes any annoyance from it, but that would not be the case if you always had them.

 

Pengw1n: Thanks!

I completely disagree. I don't know how you could really consider XCom more unfair / random when Card Hunter has more unfair / random elements in it.

In Card Hunter you have to commit to an action and deal with random elements when you attack, just like you do in XCom. In XCom, you might not hit, but you know your opponent can't block or negate your attack via armor, and you also can make your shots a sure thing through either positioning or character customization. In CH, you know your attack in and of itself will hit, but it might be blocked or negated via armor. You can make your hits a sure thing by only attacking enemies who have no cards, or by using penetration and to a lesser extent hard to block. I'd call that a wash.

What I wouldn't call a wash, though, is the fact that in XCom, my entire team goes at once, meaning I can move one guy up into a risky position and then bail him out before the opponent gets a chance to react, something I cannot do in CH.

More annoyingly, I can put my guys in an engage position, if you will, where they're not at horrible risk, but are at some, and are going to have to make some shots / hits. In XCom, that's okay, because I know ahead of time what I'm dealing with. I have a shotgun with two shots left that'll get about a 67% chance of hitting, and a pistol that has an 85% chance but only does two damage. In CH, however, I have no idea what'll come up next turn, and all too often it ends up being move, move, move.

And then there's also the randomness of what I have access to - which isn't really random in XCom. XCom does have critical hits (and I do think the game would be better off with them), which doesn't really have a CH equivalent, but I think the things that CH does have still outweigh crits.

Overall, XCom is far, far less random than CH. In each game you have randomness, and you have ways of helping to negate that randomness, but in XCom, the only elements are your chance to hit and crit. In CH, the elements are:

• What types of attacks and defense you even have access to at all, ever, in a mission
• What types of attacks or defenses you have this turn
• Whether or not those defenses are effective
• Whether or not your enemy has any attacks or defenses this turn
• Whether or not your enemy's defenses are effective
• How far you can move

Everything is a moving target. It's hard to even plan ahead for next turn when everything can dramatically shift next turn. It's hard to even plan for this turn when you really don't know what you're dealing with.

 

Nonsense. Do the math, the chances for 2 movement cards are quite small. It happens, sure, but its just a small chance.

You built the deck, so you know what can come. You also know what cards are discarded already, so the chance for a certain card rises until you will certainly get it.
Regarding the cards of the enemy: After a few turns (or if you already played the fight) you know what cards the enemy has, as the enemy deck size is usually rather small. You don't usually know what cards are on the hand, but you have a good guess, the accuracy of which depends on the drawsize and some other factors.

 

It happens, and when it happens, it's far more memorable / annoying than when it doesn't. And, really, the notion that my big beefy fighter can't do anything this turn but run around is kind of silly.

That's fine, but the game's still more random than any other strategy game I've ever played - and too random for my tastes.

 

Which the enemy if it has a group of more then once, gets a larger draw size, which while it makes sense to some degree it is as I said earlier, it is my friend who said that the random element does not feel random enough and that too often, cards you only have 1-3 in a deck, seem to somehow clump together quite regularly for something so random.

And I have to tend to agree. I can't tell you how often I have drawn two armor cards in the same draw, which while I was thankful for, seemed kind of off to draw so commonly in the same draw.

Yesterday I drew all three of my fumbles I have in my deck, on the first turn by drawing all the fumbles through each fumble that gave me a new card twice in a row.

Coincidence? Most likely, however as much as it is good those cards are out of the way, it make my characters first turn entirely useless, when is the last time you have seen the enemy get anywhere near as screwed? When is the last time you can honestly say, hey the enemy got screwed, versus, I got the draws I needed?

As for the whole X COM argument in regards to fairness...

In X COM I can save at any point in the mission. I am able to adjust the difficulty of the game at any time for any reason I choose. I am able to opt for two different types of opening set ups by starting in the tutorial, or starting without the tutorial, where the tutorial can offer some nice advantages, and the non tutorial can offer advantages as well.

Percentages, while at a glance seem unfair, often have the enemy miss you under the same percentages as well, but I have also seen the enemy miss what should have been a sure hit and end up being a complete miss.

In essence X COM while difficult, plays by a lot of it's own rules with it's percentages. Card Hunter however very quickly ignores the deck size rule for the opponent in campaign mode.

Also to address people who think I am trying to make this game my perfect idea of a game, I'm sorry does it truly upset you so much, that I am throwing out ideas that could make for a higher enjoyability of the game for as many players as possible?

Does it bother you that I believe games should be fair as opposed to punishing and unfair in certain regards?

I am sorry, you must be in the wrong forum, see this is the forum for feed back, and suggestions in an effort to potentially improve the game and make it more enjoyable for the overall community.

I have two friends that have quit this game, who I would say are above average gamers due to the game as they currently view it being unfair. I am still recommending this game to friends, but I can't dismiss that two people whom I consider pretty high quality gamers, have essentially passed this game off as trash.

So your darn right I am going to come up with any idea I can, if I can watch two fairly high quality gamers ditch a game especially since I want this game to do well.

I put down 50 dollars into this game because I believe this is a high quality game, but if I simply stand by and ignore the potential improvements that can possibly add to the gaming experience then a disservice is being done to the community and I won't abide by that.

This game has the potential to be something really good, and I would hate for it not to take off because of some rather small issues that could have been changed to make the gaming experience and enjoyability smoother.

You don't agree with me? Fine I honestly don't care, but you are absolutely right I am trying to make this my ideal type of game with suggestions. That's what this forum right here is precisely for. Suggestions to make improvements upon the game.

If 80% of everyone who picks this game up, makes it to level 8, and then quits because they feel the game is unfairly punishing them, and 20% remain, the game will likely fail.

A gamer should feel like they could have done better, said gamer should not feel like they need to absolutely rely on all manner of luck to succeed, and an extra card, would in fact eliminate some of that needed luck and perceived needed luck.

So you say I am trying to suggest things that make it my ideal game? You're right, I am. I am also thinking about what kind of player base I will have the opportunity to interact with by making enough potential improvements to keep a player base instead of kicking them to the way side.

So if you are among the people who think I am trying to change the game to my ideal type of game, you are in fact correct. If this isn't what a suggestions forum is for, then fine. I'll have the eventual displeasure or pleasure of seeing the game succeed regardless, or fail because people feel it is to punishing and unfair.

The worst part is I win if it succeeds regardless because I will have a long term game to enjoy. I lose if it fails because those suggestions I made that were ignored might have been the tipping point to make it more enjoyable.

 

As a slight aside, are we talking about the new "XCOM: Enemy Unknown?" or the old XCOM, "UFO: Enemy Unknown", because the former, newer one (unless you're playing it on Iron Man) is slightly odd with its RNG.

All the "rolls" are seeded at the start of the round. So if you save/reload a game where you've missed a shot you have an 90% chance of making in an attempt to make that shot, you will never, ever, make the shot (unless you game it by performing another action e.g. doing anything else before taking the shot and eating that "Roll"). It is intentional, to stop you save/loading, but it means the hit "chances" are slightly dishonest.

This contributes nothing to this discussion, I just found it odd first time I encountered that behaviour.

 

Actually firing from a completely different spot also changes the potential outcome not just doing something completely different.

 

Yeah, I sort of classed that as "doing anything else", as you'd have to move to a different spot. I probably shouldn't have used turn in that context.

Disclaimer: I love both versions.

 

Well you said eating that turn so I thought you might not know that you didn't have to lose the turn.

 

Yeah, corrected. Carry on =D

 

The enemy deck is designed by the dungeon designer and usually much smaller, it will not have so much variance.
There are many instances where your opponents have negative traits in the deck, and as their deck size is much smaller they have a higher probability of drawing them.

 

I can only offer my own experience and preferences, which is that I feel that 2 cards per turn is fine. At first it was somewhat frustrating when my warrior drew no attacks, but if this happens then he has usually drawn either amour, blocks or movement cards. All of these enhance his survivability in most circumstances by absorbing damage, negating damage or moving out of range of enemy attacks (while still holding up the enemy thanks to the zone of control). And then next turn he has an increased chance of drawing attacks.

Increasing to a three cards per turn could also upset the balance of the campaign, giving the player more actions while minion monsters would still be limited to one attack per round.

Regarding the random number generator, well hopefully it would be pretty easy for the devs to check that there aren't any bugs in their code that are leading to weirdness (I know they can't do anything about the rng itself, only the way they use it). By my calculations the chance of drawing Resistant Hide on the first turn 4 games in a row is 1 in ~20,000 and Fumble followed by Fumble followed by Fumble is 1 in ~2,400 (please correct me if I'm wrong, I worked these out fairly hastily).

As for the comparison with XCOM... I've only played the newer one but it seems to me that the game is less random because the potential consequences of "freak" events are much more severe. In Card Hunter if I get a bad draw it could cost me the battle, which I can then quickly retry. In XCOM a run of bad luck could lead to the deaths of one or more of my soldiers, who are then permanently dead. On a single turn I once missed a 75%, a 50% and three 60% shots in a row, ultimately leading to my entire squad getting wiped out. Needless to say this was much more infuriating than anything I've experienced in Card Hunter thus far!

Just my thoughts. It may simply be a case of how much random you like in your game.

Edit: Oh, and:

It's hard to say since enemy cards get discarded so quickly but there have definitely been times when I've seen a monster group get a hand loaded with attacks and not be able to reach me, or not have enough attacks for all of the minions to contribute.

 

I'd just like to point out that many first turn situations don't only require a "good" draw, but a better draw than what the enemy groups got, whether it is getting more movement cards or enough damage to kill something on turn 1/2. And you're drawing 4 out of 36 against enemy groups drawing 5 to 7 out of 20.

Getting an extra card out of 36 while enemies get an extra out of 20 is no advantage at all. The balancing aspect is supposed to come from the fact that most enemy character can only use one attack card per turn, but that goes out the window if they don't have this limit or if there are too many of them.

 

Well, for what it's worth, I can offer a few anecdotes that kind of explain my issue with the game as is, even when I come out on the good side of the RNG.

For the first, I was playing single player. I had done a fairly bad job with a mission, and was down to my cleric, with 1 HP, against a kobold or something with 9 HP. My cleric was generally ineffective in combat throughout the mission, and I was so sure I'd lose that I almost surrendered. I got to go first, though, and on my next turn I drew the card that lets you discard a card and deal 10 damage. I used it and won. My reaction was not one of triumph or anything like that - I just kind of shrugged. I didn't feel like I had earned the victory, I felt like I had gotten really lucky. Honestly, it's not how I really want to feel at the end of a game.

For the second, I was playing a friendly multiplayer game against a friend of mine. We were on Teamspeak and shooting the **** as we played. I got him good with a cone of cold and firewall, which felt awesome. His reaction was along the lines of, "****! You got me good. Dammit, I'm screwed." His dwarf cleric couldn't move out of the lava. It was memorable, and I felt good about it.

But what was more memorable about the match - to both of us - was that we both had clerics with the card that gives you a heal of 3 HP on a 5+ whenever you're hit. I attacked his cleric a couple times with my warrior and I don't think his heal ever triggered, or if it did, it did once, and it wasn't enough to save him - though he died just barely, so another trigger would have. My cleric, on the other hand, had that same ability trigger probably four times out of five in the course of three turns. I believe my cleric ended the game with 12 life, i.e. the life given by the ability triggering. At points my cleric was lower, which is to say that the same ability that failed to save my friend's cleric came through and saved mine.

I felt so lame about the ability working inordinately well for me and poorly for my friend that I was literally apologizing to him for winning. I felt good about the tactical maneuver I'd pulled with cone of cold and firewall. I felt like I had done nothing to earn my cleric being alive. The RNG just decided to crap on him and smile on me. I didn't feel victorious, I felt lucky.

As a related aside, we've both dropped the game since. Neither of us hates it, or anything, we just haven't felt the desire to play it, and we've just moved on to other things. I can't speak for his precise reasons, but for me it's embodied by those two fights. A victory as random as that just doesn't feel like a victory to me.

 

Interesting. I think those two situations would evoke different responses (to each other) in me. In the second I can see your point, I too would probably feel a bit bad about making so many 5+ rolls. Equally you both know that could happen when going into the game, but I can definitely see what you mean.

I think in the first situation I'd react very differently, and probably come out of it both relieved and with a big smile on my face! I know that that card is in my deck, I know it hasn't come up yet, I know I've passed first, and I know it's the only thing that can save me. The tension builds... will I pull the card I need to give me a shot at winning? Yes! Now I just need it to be successful. Does the kobold have armour; will he block the attack? No! Ha! Victory is mine, and by the skin of my teeth. To me that's a memorable, and enjoyable, battle. Like in a board game when a player needs to roll a 6 for something crucial, and usually slightly crazy. There's the sense of anticipation... the player who is rolling the dice, maybe even everyone playing the game, is stood up around the table. All eyes are on the die as it bounces across the table and... 6! For a moment there is stunned silence, then all hell breaks loose. Those are the moments that stick in the memory and are usually recounted for many moons afterwards.

Sure, that isn't always the kind of game I'm looking for, but when it is I find that Card Hunter delivers the kind of experience that I want. If the majority of people aren't enjoying the amount of randomness in the game then yes, it would probably make sense for the devs to change it to try and make Card Hunter more successful. But I, for one, might be a little bit sad to see it go.

 

Very true.
I don't have a problem with the current draw system, I like the amount of random the game currently has.
If you draw nothing but moves, on most adventures you can just make an orderly retreat that turn and then attack again when you draw better.

But there are definitely a few maps that start you in a tight enough situation that you can't really afford to spend a turn retreating.
If you ask me, the correct answer isn't to make changes to the draw system but instead to make minor changes to the maps that are the worst offenders.

 

I've been collecting stats on what you get from chests in each module, and yesterday I was playing the first map of Wizard's Workshop and the Tin Golems didn't draw any armor cards in the first two rounds (which meant there wasn't a third round). And this is the map specifically intended to introduce players to the concept of armor.

 

I don't like tactics games, with two exceptions. X-com (old and new) and now Card Hunters.
Most tactics games bore me, I tried real hard to like Disgaea for example, but just lost interest.

X-com and Card Hunters really hold my attention though.

X-com has the base building world view with resource management and shooting down UFOs! The tactical battles can be very difficult but if you build you researched the right stuff and did well on the world map portion, you could have then built your squad correctly such that they have a good chance of winning the missions. Yes you have to control them properly, but the setup is done beforehand.

Card Hunters also has a setup phase, but it is random. I love card games, I love building decks, and I love gearing characters in RPGs. Card hunters combines those two things in what happens to be a tactics game. Random chance is an inherent part of both card games, and RPG drop-rates. When you get lucky and get that new awesome piece and you gear your team/build your deck, then you go into the match and watch that carefully crafted deck flow through your hands as the rounds pass, that really feels like the fusion of card game and rpg that I think they were going for.

Sure sometimes your draw sucks, but that is the nature of card games, and this is a card game. I get that people want to mitigate RNG, but that is a pipe dream. You could draw 10 cards per turn and people will still complain about bad draws, only then it would be how they only got a couple attacks instead of the 4-5 they are used to, whatever. Basically in order to fully make Card Hunters more like what I believe you are thinking other turn based strategy games are like, you would have to completely change the nature of the game.


When I want to do some resource management, research, squad building and carefully planned missions that rely on proper setup and precise execution, I play X-com.
When I want to do deck building and an rpg style card game where the luck of the draw and careful deck building can dramatically change the way a round plays out, I play Card Hunters.
Keep your X-com out of my card hunters please