Let's settle this once and for all. Card combat, Good or Bad

There are many problems. I'm going to go into depth on them later after R18 is more tested, and what they're working on for R19 becomes known. I want to give them the chance to do what they said and fix this.

In my opinion

- it lacks any appreciable depth during active combat. I never worry about what's coming up with a solid deck. DPS is still alive and well, and that means getting those cards out of my hand pronto.

- most of the depth it does have happens once at deck creation, and even that will be rarely used by most people who just look up decks online.

- if you do make a deck, there's not enough feedback to really know if it's a good or bad deck right away. There's too much time gap between build and testing to feel connected. Even after you try it it could be that

- The other person's deck sucked more/less but it's still bad/good overall.​

- You just got lucky/unlucky in your draws.​

- That you'll be expected to have several decks for different load outs to remain viable in adventuring. Rather than just adjust to situations on the fly that test you as a player, it's more looking to see if you brought enough decks.

- The weakness of locked glyphs is an issue, but ultimately a balance issue. The real problem here is they're not giving people and apples for apples experience to know if they really do like this better.

- Dragging glyphs for combos has a couple issues:

- It distracts from what's happening on the screen by forcing you to watch for things happening in the UI.​

- It feels unimportant to me. I'm just matching stuff in green because I should. I'm not actually thinking "OK, this guy will really get hurt if I douse him then freeze it." No moment of feeling cleaver. You know?​

- Focus points are a balance issue to be sure. But that you're essentially spending skill points to make your UI manageable isn't a good game mechanic. Ever.

- It means skills I know through training will be unavailable for out of game reasons. This isn't' because I forgot my sword, or didn't bring reagents, or ran out of mana, or the moment isn't opportune. It's because the game said "Wouldn't it be fun if you might not get to use your knowledge right now?"

- It means I won't take as many interesting skills. The worry about following Warcraft's pattern of only using a few skill is exacerbated by a deck system. Draw decks do not favor diversity. There are ways to overcome this, but they aren't in the current system.

- There is no way to have no UI with this system, or even get closer. This is what the lead wants. If your keys aren't going to do what you coded them to do, you have to show that on screen to the player. That you can 'turn it off' isn't an answer.

- Balancing a known style of combat system in a game is hard. Balancing an unknown combat system in a game is very hard. Doing both at the same time with each other on a kick-starter budget seems like a bad use of resources.

- The balance for those of us who want a locked system means extra restraints to keep it in parity with the chaos of draws. It means we'll never get a straight combat system no matter how much we're told it's an option to lock the bar. It'll always be a shadow of what it could have been, and we'll know it.

- It is the combat equivalent of the classic dialog trees. My character says "I'll Kill you!" or "I love you!"... really? How about a few shades of grey in there? Just one or two. I don't need 50 (ehhh? EHHH? Sorry.) How about letting me decide what to do/say? That I got to pick their demeanor in the beginning doesn't make it better when the choices don't fit what I have in my head.

- It doesn't fit the flavor of the rest of the systems. A developer here once said that I was trying to tell all the cooks to throw out all the recipes. Really, it's just this one. The rest of the meal is well done, and while I might have added a dash of salt here or there to taste, this just feels out of place with the rest of the meal. It feels beneath it somehow.

- In regards to the point above. It creates a different audience. Most of the people who like all the hands on dialog and crafting will be put off by the intrusive nature of the combat experience. People who like the combat, probably won't like the fiddliness of crafting or dialog. No game ever has gotten more fiddley over time. It always falls downward. As a fan of those two systems, I've already watched dialog slip some, and I'd rather not seem them slip any more.

Saving my fixes to see more of what they're doing. R18 felt like a testing the water with some ideas. I'm hoping for a larger change in R19. We'll see.

But as for the second sentence there... you do know a lot of people are here for the single player game. Right? That for some people that's what this is about? The story and the lore, and the online part isn't really the driving force?

I'm happy to have the online part of course. I want to adventure with my friends, but if I can't get them to even give it a shot right now (that's right, in my group "I" am the open minded one on this system) then I don't know how long I'll be here. But it will mostly be to play through the story. I don't need another empty save for the players world to wander around in.

And many of them started skeptical and the lead wants no UI and a more immersive experience for it than can reasonably be expected from this system. Now, instead of starting by building what Garriott wants and walking it back, we built what Spears wanted and are walking it back. As someone who backed based on the Lord British name, that rubs me the wrong way a bit. Sure a lot of the rest of it is his flavor, but combat doesn't feel like it belongs in his game at all.

Again, just my opinion, but as you pointed out, the majority seems to share at-least some of that.

 

Freeman is spot on in everything he wrote. For me, especially this: It doesn't fit the flavor of the rest of the systems. A developer here once said that I was trying to tell all the cooks to throw out all the recipes. Really, it's just this one. The rest of the meal is well done, and while I might have added a dash of salt here or there to taste, this just feels out of place with the rest of the meal. It feels beneath it somehow.

Not only is the entire concept of card combat distracting and immersion breaking, it just is completely inconsistent with the rest of the SotA. If chatting, exploring and crafting were all card based, I think I could handle card combat better. This game is an immersive RPG in all aspects except for one thing: combat.

 

"And many of them started skeptical and the lead wants no UI and a more immersive experience for it than can reasonably be expected from this system. Now, instead of starting by building what Garriott wants and walking it back, we built what Spears wanted and are walking it back. As someone who backed based on the Lord British name, that rubs me the wrong way a bit. Sure a lot of the rest of it is his flavor, but combat doesn't feel like it belongs in his game at all."

I find that Freeman always echos how I feel among others on this forum. I had no idea that this wasn't what Lord British had wanted. I should probably do some research and read some interviews. If that's the case, how on earth did we end up with this system?

 

"How did we end up with this system?" is something I've been asking myself since I first played card combat. I really wish I knew the answer. One thing I do know: I'm not enjoying it.

 

Not enjoying anything at all in game with any current release is understandable. That's par for the course.

 

People are enjoying dancing on tables, decorating their houses, exploring instances and talking to quest givers. That part of the game works and on a fundamental level is enjoyable, or at least shows promise.

The combat system is the red-headed stepchild of this whole game, and is big enough of an issue to overshadow any and all cool aspects they've worked on elsewhere.

 

They are building a lot more than just a game. They are building tools to run that game. Not everything they are doing gets to be cool features for us to play. Even if in the end they facilitate those cool features.

The conversion from Unity 4 to 5 for example.

 

How many of THEM would care, either about why it's being used or about the distinction you attempt to make? They are consumers, in total control of where they spend their dollars and their time. SotA wants both, and will receive neither. They complained viciously about the combat system before storming off to find somewhere more to their liking. And before you start, yes, yes they did. In fact the sample population in question is DEFINED as being those who quit due to their objections regarding the deck combat system. Anyone who happened to just leave without saying why is by default NOT WHO WE WERE TALKING ABOUT.

I'm not saying that I want to convince you that they were right. I'm saying that trying to pretend that they didn't express their opinions on the subject, or that their vote doesn't matter, is so foolish as to be ridiculous. They voted. And continue to vote. They pledged, they represent a subsection of the potential market for this game (and as a group of first responders who put money on the table during kickstarter they can reasonably be used to represent the future opinions of their particular part of the demographic, just as all of us can, which is WHY anyone gives two farts for our opinions on these boards, we are a representative sample of the potential market), and their opinion is a matter of record. Can we spare them? That's a numbers question, to be decided by the devs, but from what limited data I've seen the answer may well be "no". A LOT of people have expressed unhappiness, and a great many of those who started on these forums have left in clearly voiced disgust.

If things keep going that way, this game won't have a very impressive release. Kinda like what happens when you "release" an egg while standing in your kitchen.

 

Just watched your video.. while I disagree with some parts. I have to say for the over all, I agree.

I have to admit I am one who likes the chaos of the dealt deck. The element of surprise ourselves as well as the opponent. Seriously, it is like playing as I have said in the past "magic the gathering". You build your deck, shuffle it and pull out the card you are going to play. I actually really like it

You did ask - Who honestly likes it.. ~this girl~

I do however, sit on the fence for the new method which they are trying their very best to balance out for both sides. Which to be honest feels awkward to me.

Again going back to a game of cards "decks"... its like stacking the deck.

Edit: You may not have the millions of cards as in M:TG today.. However, did you play alpha M:TG? 1 expansion. 1 set. Very limited selection. I have to say, I like it now that I have tried it. I was on the "do not like"... now I can not go back to a locked deck without it feeling just wrong.

 

Then you are a trooper. And I thank you.

Glad you like it. Glad you're speaking up. I would question if you couldn't get those same feelings in a better package without it, but glad you have something you like about it and can identify it.

I will ask one point on that... are you ever actually surprised by your opponent's draw... since, after all.... you can't see it? Wouldn't that part be just as surprising whether there was a deck or not?

 

1) Actually as mentioned in the edit (which you may not have seen before your post) - I used to really be a firm advocate to the locked deck. I would not play it unlocked until i learned of combos. Now, even tho I rarely even use stacking or combos (because i just forget to) I can not go back to locked. It just does not feel as "right" as the unlocked does.

2) "wouldn't it be just as surprising"... exactly. It always is surprising what your opponent may pull out on you. That was my point. However with this, it is also a surprise to you the player, what you are going to pull out. Element of surprise, adds element of excitement or "darn it, i know that card was in there but did not pull my winning combination".

I used to and still play magic and have had that issue a number of times. You know the winning combination is in your deck of 40-60 cards. If you pull it that could change the tide for you and give you the win. But if you don't, and you have no idea if you will, it could mean a loss.

Something about it just adds to the fun. Whether in PvP or PvE.

Oh and want to add: THANK YOU!!! i agree with you on the maps!! I want the hand drawn back But, I have gotten used to this one. Its eye candy, so its pleasing to others. Still, I miss Stephens hand drawn map.

 

I did play MTG all the way back. I left right as Tempest was winding down. I always loved the closed deck tournaments for play. I feel like it really sorts out who can play vs who can just buy a good deck. The thing that makes it acceptable there is an open acceptance that some of the game play is being abstracted.

I also own all but the last two dominion expansions. My wife and I love the game.

I'm not anti card game in general, but more in how it fits in an online, 3rd person, action-ish MMO with a lead dev who's legacy has always been immersion and realism, especially when that legacy is what got many of us to pledge.

As for the surprising thing, I think it's interesting you find that a positive. For me being stuck in a situation of "Ok, I've done everything right, I get to lose now because... potato" will never be fun. And if I win because that happened to the other guy? It doesn't make me feel like I accomplished anything. It can be surprising, but if we're to believe that skill is what matters here most of all, then the actual surprises should be few and far between, if they're not, then it's not really requiring anything from me as a player, and we could just flip a coin for the battle as that would be just as surprising.

Are you playing in a PvP capacity or just PvE?

 

I could give them that benefit of the doubt if they didn't open up two threads for street names.

 

Sleep spell you get at level 7, so I'd try killing the dragon at 8. if you were lucky and he didn't wake up you could sometimes kill him(most of the time it was wasted and he wakes up immediately), if you got 1 or 2 critical blows in you could definitely kill him... so that is the randomness I'm talking about. Now, if you went to attack and what you had available was random, that would be interesting. And as you leveled up you'd have more available per attack. To balance it you'd have to make them more powerful, but I think the game would still work.

That is why the locked skills exist. We get it, you don't like the random system. So what could make the locked system enjoyable for you? The answer should be, you have an alternative available, what is so bad about the alternative? Right now the balance is an issue, and for me it would be the lack of action.. The locked system can be balanced, they could incorporate more action into combat.

 

This is already in the game, it's R then press the first slot, then press the 2nd slot. It works very well.

 

Thank you mate! I didn't know. I try to read through all the release notes as often as my time allows. There are times when I miss it. Thanks!

 

The comments are completely directed to correct polling methods. Has nothing to do with funding or anything like that. Sample groups, I quoted a post that was selectively grouping voters and pondering the results. Love like hate whatever this combat system, that is not logical, so I added the groups to the poll.

 

The people that code UI and combat are the people that slap some text on a sign? Highly doubtful, but hey, I have no clue how high tech those signs are.

 

They often comment in hangouts that they are a small team and aspects of the game and its management are spread among the developers. Thats part of the reason why there was a 2-4 week turnaround on CS issues. I think some time ago they also said they'd be cutting back on adding new house options and the like because it was pulling designers away from development to work on those aspects. Its pretty clear a lot of mundane tasks have to be handled by critical members of the team.

I believe Lum is or was handling the street names. I also believe his title is Senior Game Designer. Could be wrong though.

 

And in creating this hybrid system you create a new set of problems.

1.) Balance between the two is time consuming to get it almost right. It will never be perfect, and it will take a lot of work to get it acceptable, which isn't a good formula for a small team. Start with one, build an asymmetric option over the course of the game and unleash it later. There will always be one side that is simply more powerful, that's not fair to anyone.

2.a.) Even close to parity, it will still be half of what it could be on it's own. Minimal set of skills available, cool downs that will always be longer than another game would have them, and less skills overall to keep deck size reasonable, all in an effort to keep it balanced with the dynamic deck.

2.b.) And... same for the dynamic bar. That's the problem with splitting the difference. In an effort to make both sides happy, they'll not do a great job of either. You should have just as much a problem with the locked deck, as we do with dynamic. It holds back everything you could do. It holds back options that would otherwise be available to a deck system.

3.) There is no effort or even interest in balancing the locked deck at the moment, and I question if there ever will be. It feels very much like a pacifier so that the handful who do like dynamic decks can say "well, you have your alternative, so go do that and leave us alone."

4.) This is being made to be the noteworthy combat system for this game. Not the locked bar. They didn't build a good locked bar and then go for dynamic balance. It's a non starter philosophically for a lot of LB's fans.

5.) It runs the risk of watering down other systems by catering to an audience that doesn't hold to the goals of a LB style game.

6.) It's resources being spent on something that a small group of people think has potential, but after 2 years is still failing to stand on it's own without another round of hand waving and "Just give us 3 more releases". If it was at least a good deck system I'd have to say "Well, it's not for me, but glad this game exists."

My question is this:

Where is the SCRUM team for LB's UI-less combat? I'd love to be on that? Why is this the direction that we get "Oh, it just needs polish" when another developer, the lead BTW, wants something the polar opposite of this and it's not being given the same effort and attention. Because, honestly, if after 2 years of talk, work and testing that system was still getting this level of debate, and polling at half I'd have to look at LB and say "Well... you tried... maybe next game."