Author Topic: [Dev Blog] Moose Report #1  (Read 12900 times)

Offline Teremus

  • Really Cool Moose
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5545
  • Hide your cheese.
    • View Profile
Re: [Dev Blog] Moose Report #1
« Reply #30 on: July 04, 2014, 12:01:57 PM »
Qfasa I believe, as I have seen many in this thread follow suit, that you misunderstood the intention of the article.

I never said how, or when, anything is being changed. I provided a thought process, and our guiding principles. I never said that we're not changing any cards, I never said that nerfs or buffs wouldn't happen, those also weren't the subjects of the article.

It would have been an exceptionally bad idea for me to be the one that goes into specifics of that nature.

No seriously, I really like cheese.

Quote from: Poga
I make this game, James.

Offline Swiftwynd

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 270
    • View Profile
Re: [Dev Blog] Moose Report #1
« Reply #31 on: July 06, 2014, 11:58:29 PM »
Qfasa I believe, as I have seen many in this thread follow suit, that you misunderstood the intention of the article.

I never said how, or when, anything is being changed. I provided a thought process, and our guiding principles. I never said that we're not changing any cards, I never said that nerfs or buffs wouldn't happen, those also weren't the subjects of the article.

It would have been an exceptionally bad idea for me to be the one that goes into specifics of that nature.

Hey Teremus :D

Just wanted to get your feelings regarding cards that have very little "interaction" with the opponent and are essentially guaranteed plays.

Things like Sacullas / Champion of Ruin / Lucca / Dark Blast / Torch Bearer / Mortar Cannon / Demoralize and to a lesser extent Shrine to the Heavens.


Most of these cards can get into situations in which the opposing player literally has absolutely no method whatsoever of preventing their outcomes during the turn they are used, which makes these turns appear boring and methodical, removing any elements of prediction, counter play, and attempting to secure your win or prevent your loss.  Often times the opposing player can only desperately hope to tie, which allows the offensive player to just chip everything into defense since they no longer need to try to win, only to not let the opponent tie.


In a game like IW where simultaneous turns, board placement, and predicting and countering your opponent is key, do you feel that these 100% (or near, in some cases) guaranteed effects are healthy from a design standpoint?

Offline NatoPotato

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 709
  • Guns don't kill people, ninjas kill people.
    • View Profile
    • CLICK ME
Re: [Dev Blog] Moose Report #1
« Reply #32 on: July 08, 2014, 03:59:51 AM »
This thread reminded me of a video I watched a while ago about balance in games, here's a link if anyone wants to check it out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e31OSVZF77w

(For anyone too lazy to watch the whole thing, skip to 4:15)
« Last Edit: July 08, 2014, 04:04:02 AM by NatoPotato »

Offline Teremus

  • Really Cool Moose
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5545
  • Hide your cheese.
    • View Profile
Re: [Dev Blog] Moose Report #1
« Reply #33 on: July 08, 2014, 09:56:28 AM »
This thread reminded me of a video I watched a while ago about balance in games, here's a link if anyone wants to check it out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e31OSVZF77w

(For anyone too lazy to watch the whole thing, skip to 4:15)

That is a very good video, and I commend them for it.

Swiftwynd,

My personal feelings on the matter may differ from where yourself and LM's heads are at. From a standpoint of understanding various necessities, there is a concept within those cards that is necessary however it's a very careful line where they can be too efficient. That's something that's on our radar at the moment.
No seriously, I really like cheese.

Quote from: Poga
I make this game, James.

Offline lilo

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 58
  • [rebooting...]
    • View Profile
Re: [Dev Blog] Moose Report #1
« Reply #34 on: July 08, 2014, 01:35:14 PM »
That's something that's on our radar at the moment.
So happy~ :'(
Here.
[Collection Sale]

◕ ‿‿ ◕

"You may be deceived if you trust too much, but you will live in torment if you don't trust enough."

Offline Swiftwynd

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 270
    • View Profile
Re: [Dev Blog] Moose Report #1
« Reply #35 on: July 08, 2014, 03:29:53 PM »
This thread reminded me of a video I watched a while ago about balance in games, here's a link if anyone wants to check it out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e31OSVZF77w

(For anyone too lazy to watch the whole thing, skip to 4:15)

That is a very good video, and I commend them for it.

Swiftwynd,

My personal feelings on the matter may differ from where yourself and LM's heads are at. From a standpoint of understanding various necessities, there is a concept within those cards that is necessary however it's a very careful line where they can be too efficient. That's something that's on our radar at the moment.

Thanks for the reply!

I agree that there certainly is a careful line with these cards, and while I understand that cards that can be "nearly sure to work how you want them to, reliably" are not bad in theory, in practice I personally feel they would be much better suited to be altered in a way that offers the opponent at least some method of preventing the effect.

I believe the solid design method of merging such "surefire effects" effects to Character cards, and making them contingent on certain combat related actions, could greatly improve their fairness for opponents and to keep their usage interesting.

For example, what if you actually had to protect those Come Into Play mass target cards? 

What if it was crucial to actually protect Lucca / Sacullas / Champion of Ruin throughout the combat phase for their effects to take place? 

What if their effects could happen for multiple turns in a row if you successfully protect them while keeping them in combat? E.G. Sacullas dealing his effect when he hits the fortress, Lucca providing her buff at the end of turn if alive in a combat zone, Champion of Ruin dealing 2 damage to each non-flyer on the field at the end of turn, etc.


I believe these types of redesigns are more in spirit with the concepts that make IW unique and fun.  It rewards good, intelligent use of these characters, and often times really seems to fit more with their theme, rather than a one-use entrance effect that then is useless for the remainder of that card's life (barring some bounces) which incentivises just killing off the Unique to replace it with one in hand.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2014, 03:32:47 PM by Swiftwynd »

Offline MzudemX

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 120
    • View Profile
Re: [Dev Blog] Moose Report #1
« Reply #36 on: July 08, 2014, 04:27:25 PM »
At least it would be nice if the cards would state that there effects (lucca) are preemitive other then deamon of fear which is handled like any other effect.
Imo these cards shouldn't be preemtive for the reasons Swiftwynd mentioned above.

Offline Swiftwynd

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 270
    • View Profile
Re: [Dev Blog] Moose Report #1
« Reply #37 on: July 09, 2014, 05:48:03 AM »
At least it would be nice if the cards would state that there effects (lucca) are preemitive other then deamon of fear which is handled like any other effect.
Imo these cards shouldn't be preemtive for the reasons Swiftwynd mentioned above.

This is a prime example of just how unintuitive their mechanics are.

From your understanding,  you believe their effects happen preemptively,  but in actuality they occur before preemptive abilities even as they register on the placement phase before the ability phase even occurs.

Preemptive simply means it will go first before other non preemptive abilities.

Sadly, these upon play or when entering battlefield effects have nothing in the game that currently can prevent their effects and they will always resolve before literally anything else.

Offline Thechynd

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 442
    • View Profile
Re: [Dev Blog] Moose Report #1
« Reply #38 on: July 09, 2014, 10:42:38 AM »
At least it would be nice if the cards would state that there effects (lucca) are preemitive other then deamon of fear which is handled like any other effect.
Imo these cards shouldn't be preemtive for the reasons Swiftwynd mentioned above.
Sadly, these upon play or when entering battlefield effects have nothing in the game that currently can prevent their effects and they will always resolve before literally anything else.

What happens if you have initiative and play multiple Champions of Ruin on the same turn your opponent plays Lucca? Will they prevent her ability by killing her before it triggers or not?

Offline DrayGon777

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2107
  • Friendly Neighborhood Dragon
    • View Profile
Re: [Dev Blog] Moose Report #1
« Reply #39 on: July 09, 2014, 01:29:56 PM »
I would say, yes, it would prevent her effect, due to you having initiative and both currently going of when they come into play. Might be worth testing to be sure, though.
Just so you guys know, if you're ever vs WWK, just start putting out random numbers and mathematical symbols, he will surrender.

Offline Palaxar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 330
    • View Profile
Re: [Dev Blog] Moose Report #1
« Reply #40 on: July 09, 2014, 07:17:59 PM »
Qfasa I believe, as I have seen many in this thread follow suit, that you misunderstood the intention of the article.

I never said how, or when, anything is being changed. I provided a thought process, and our guiding principles. I never said that we're not changing any cards, I never said that nerfs or buffs wouldn't happen, those also weren't the subjects of the article.

It would have been an exceptionally bad idea for me to be the one that goes into specifics of that nature.

Hey Teremus :D

Just wanted to get your feelings regarding cards that have very little "interaction" with the opponent and are essentially guaranteed plays.

Things like Sacullas / Champion of Ruin / Lucca / Dark Blast / Torch Bearer / Mortar Cannon / Demoralize and to a lesser extent Shrine to the Heavens.


Most of these cards can get into situations in which the opposing player literally has absolutely no method whatsoever of preventing their outcomes during the turn they are used, which makes these turns appear boring and methodical, removing any elements of prediction, counter play, and attempting to secure your win or prevent your loss.  Often times the opposing player can only desperately hope to tie, which allows the offensive player to just chip everything into defense since they no longer need to try to win, only to not let the opponent tie.


In a game like IW where simultaneous turns, board placement, and predicting and countering your opponent is key, do you feel that these 100% (or near, in some cases) guaranteed effects are healthy from a design standpoint?
I'm sorry, but what? you can prevent pretty much half of them, and in the case of Mortar Cannon, you can do it with 1 resource if you're playing Verore: Lightning Blast, Mortar Cannon is an Artificial so you can Lightning Blast it for 8 damage and if you do so on your priority, you won't take ANY damage from it. You can also use things like Fight on it if you're playing Warpath, and you can potentially kill it off before it has the chance to use its ability with Mad Monk.

When it comes to Shrine to the Heavens, you can kill his characters that he's gonna be exhausting, or you can just outright destroy the Shrine with Consecrating Angel. There are ALOT of counters to abilities in the game as well. I'd say the only ones you can't counter very well out of the ones that you listed are Lucca, Sacculas, and Champion of Ruin, and even those can be countered in some ways(though some of the cards you'd use to counter them aren't really valuable in a normal deck.
________
     |___|   
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ Got thesis!

Offline Teremus

  • Really Cool Moose
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5545
  • Hide your cheese.
    • View Profile
Re: [Dev Blog] Moose Report #1
« Reply #41 on: July 10, 2014, 04:51:11 AM »
At least it would be nice if the cards would state that there effects (lucca) are preemitive other then deamon of fear which is handled like any other effect.
Imo these cards shouldn't be preemtive for the reasons Swiftwynd mentioned above.

This is something I have already discussed in this post. The language and terminology of our cards has been rather inconsistent for a long time. We're working on hammering all of that out pretty hardcore over the coming months.
No seriously, I really like cheese.

Quote from: Poga
I make this game, James.

Offline Swiftwynd

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 270
    • View Profile
Re: [Dev Blog] Moose Report #1
« Reply #42 on: July 13, 2014, 02:50:56 PM »
Qfasa I believe, as I have seen many in this thread follow suit, that you misunderstood the intention of the article.

I never said how, or when, anything is being changed. I provided a thought process, and our guiding principles. I never said that we're not changing any cards, I never said that nerfs or buffs wouldn't happen, those also weren't the subjects of the article.

It would have been an exceptionally bad idea for me to be the one that goes into specifics of that nature.

Hey Teremus :D

Just wanted to get your feelings regarding cards that have very little "interaction" with the opponent and are essentially guaranteed plays.

Things like Sacullas / Champion of Ruin / Lucca / Dark Blast / Torch Bearer / Mortar Cannon / Demoralize and to a lesser extent Shrine to the Heavens.


Most of these cards can get into situations in which the opposing player literally has absolutely no method whatsoever of preventing their outcomes during the turn they are used, which makes these turns appear boring and methodical, removing any elements of prediction, counter play, and attempting to secure your win or prevent your loss.  Often times the opposing player can only desperately hope to tie, which allows the offensive player to just chip everything into defense since they no longer need to try to win, only to not let the opponent tie.


In a game like IW where simultaneous turns, board placement, and predicting and countering your opponent is key, do you feel that these 100% (or near, in some cases) guaranteed effects are healthy from a design standpoint?

I'm sorry, but what? you can prevent pretty much half of them, and in the case of Mortar Cannon, you can do it with 1 resource if you're playing Verore: Lightning Blast, Mortar Cannon is an Artificial so you can Lightning Blast it for 8 damage and if you do so on your priority, you won't take ANY damage from it. You can also use things like Fight on it if you're playing Warpath, and you can potentially kill it off before it has the chance to use its ability with Mad Monk.

When it comes to Shrine to the Heavens, you can kill his characters that he's gonna be exhausting, or you can just outright destroy the Shrine with Consecrating Angel. There are ALOT of counters to abilities in the game as well. I'd say the only ones you can't counter very well out of the ones that you listed are Lucca, Sacculas, and Champion of Ruin, and even those can be countered in some ways(though some of the cards you'd use to counter them aren't really valuable in a normal deck.

Mortar Cannon played on the opponent's initiative can only be dealt with by Controlled Temporal Anomaly or dealing sufficient "Come into Play" character damage from Mad Monk and Champion of Ruin.  You can prevent the loss from it by playing Jialan or healing through the damage on the same turn.  It is more "fair" than other methods of mostly-unavoidable damage since you are given at least a turn to react, but it is still near functionally impossible to survive a Mortar Cannon played on your initiative if your health is already in the kill zone.  A smart user of the Mortar Cannon will always be sure to get 8 damage out of it, period.  Very low efficiency of total resource cost to damage ratio is the only thing keeping this in check, but with Sacullas the opposite is true, hence why he is out of balance at the moment.


With Shrine, if you do not splash angels and have no support targeting mass removal, you have no means of preventing a loss if you cannot reach your wincondition first.  But thats not what I was refering to, which is that in the SAME turn as played, if your opponent has the initiative and played enough token generators in the previous turn or just plays a slew of characters that turn, you cannot "prevent" a loss from Shrine during the same turn.  That is, there is no card in infinity wars save for Consecrating Angel that can currently prevent a "win" from Shrine on the same turn if the opponent has initiative.  Shrine is still hard to win with, but with it simply being a "win if condition met" type mechanic that the opponent has little they can do to mess up the win, the only options being Consecrating Angel and attempting to beat the opponent down to force them to have to block with characters.

Shrine I feel is largely more balanced than most other unavoidable-in-turn win conditions, because you do have more time to attempt to get in your own win condition, but if you simply lack the tools to either remove mass units from support or the power to win fast, then its a card in which you cannot really prevent the win. 

For example, lets say a CoV / DoD deck with loads of removal has been continuously removing units on the board, or hell maybe even the Calamity is played by the opponent on their initiative, but the Shrine is at 90% and you play Overwhelming Undead after their Calamity.  In this situation, the only way to prevent a loss is through Controlled Temporal Anomaly, Mad Monk, or Angel of Ruin/Consecration, because the shrine will trigger off all the overwhelming dead as well as any other character dropped that turn even if those characters are removed during the turn.


To make cards like this "fair" in a simultaneous turn system, those types of effects should happen at the end of turn.  For example, if Shrine read "Exhausted target character.  At the end of turn, this Character will add 3% to Shrine of the Heavens.  If shrine of the heavens is 100% complete at the end of turn, your opponent's Morale becomes 0."

This alteration slightly buffs the speed of the win condition at the cost of making it interact with character removal.  Now Shrine decks wouldn't simply be able to all-in defensively on their final turns, and would have to consider how much they can sacrifice to defense against how many characters they fear will be removed.

Additionally, the current wording of "you win the game" is absolutely not accurate, as it makes the opponent lose the game via morale but does not prevent your loss of the game, which makes it tie in that scenario.  If the current card text was taken literally, you would actually 100% win the game and prevent any tie.



Long story short, there are some very simple and effective methods of making otherwise low player-interaction winconditions more dynamic and less static.  Currently, Shrine = have characters sufficient to build shrine, you at best win and at worst tie, you cannot lose (ignoring the very, very few counters I mentioned before).  With my suggestion to shrine, the well-being of your characters on your "assumed" final turn is critically important, and the opponent has more methods of delaying your win.

Offline OrdoM

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 17
    • View Profile
Re: [Dev Blog] Moose Report #1
« Reply #43 on: July 24, 2014, 04:27:01 AM »
This type of blog post is a vital bridge of communication between Lightmare and the players. I sincerely hope to see more of this. Top shelf work.

Offline Zahiri

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 60
    • View Profile
Re: [Dev Blog] Moose Report #1
« Reply #44 on: July 24, 2014, 02:12:19 PM »
I would would to see this along with someone who actually creates content similar to what Rosewater does with MTG.