Dealing with cards?

SmokerKGB,
I too have these concerns, yet I'm warming up to the randomness of the cars to where I like them now very much. But I still share your concerns for a more easy interface. The space jockeys of Star Citizen have been encouraging their game to be best played through the Hardware Interface of the PlayStation style of controllers and I'm beginning to feel that somehow our SotA needs to follow this trend because of it's easy of control and more simplified, centralized interface.
Currently, I have set some macro, but I'm leaning toward a programmable mouse, which operates much the same as the PlayStation design, yet with the feel of a more comfortable well established in my mind as well as in my hand gaming interface.
"It sux getting old and stuck in my ways, but it also sux loosing" *peaks over in Espada's card hand*
But I do enjoy the cards very much now in random and haven't touched my 5th slot yet !
~Time Lord~

 

I'm starting to warm up too, but I still don't like it much... But at least now I have memorized most of my spell icons and know what works best in what circumstance... there's still a few more days to practice, so we'll see...

 

You had me until this.

Rich and detailed have squat to do with options.

A book can have a ridiculously detailed, engrossing world. Your option is to read or not read.

Candy Crush and Robot Unicorn Attack 2 are banal, single thought games with a ridiculous amount of options.

Rich & Detailed != Choices/Options.

 

Joviex, I do not recall stating that rich and detailed automatically equate with choices or options. You have given two examples of having options, but seem a bit jumbled on your meaning. First, for the sake of preserving context, the lines preceding what you've quoted read: " I believe that one needs to be in a detailed and interactive world to be immersed and this has been my main point throughout all SoTA discussions."

While I agree that being rich or detailed alone does not necessarily constitute having options, it seems that you have crossed a few definitions here. Having options means having a minimum of two items presented in a situation. Making a choice is an active, conscious decision to chose one of the items (or not). I strongly believe that presenting a world devoid of well thought options will not allow us the ability to make real choices and therefore defeat the whole concept be immersion (unless you feel that one can be totally immersed in a passive environment). Your examples are limited and I fail to see your point with the book example-- yes, you can chose to read a book or not or read the first page or half or so on....with respect to candy crush, I'm not familiar with playing, so I cannot comment on specifics, but if it's a single thought game, then choices must be limited (despite many options?).

So, if you feel that a rich, detailed, interactive world are not a necessary part of SoTA, then I think our vision differs and that is fine. If you're replying simply to contest a line from my post (without any attention to context), then well done!

 

This idea of multiple zones within the bar each with their own "mini deck" is very interesting.
I hope the devs consider this as it addresses many of the issues that I personally have with the current design.
This idea allows you to cycle many skills through the deck but do so in a way that you can predict where in the bar certain types of skills will appear as well as having your favorite go-to skills locked into position.

I like it.

 

Choices are options. Options are choices. Not sure I understand how you are have them as separate concepts.

As for the post

Its exactly in what I quoted earlier:

You did equate choice to world depth. It is that leap in logic I find no bueno. Rich and beautiful worlds do not automagically make for choices and options.

Candy crush bad example? How about poker? Is Poker a rich and beautiful world? How about Chess?

Neither of those have much depth beyond your actual choices. And, neither of these are overburdened with complexity for complexity's sake. Your choices, of which you have a multitude, actually end up constructing a deep and detailed experience each session.

All of these things interact: depth, complexity, choice, but are not tethered or related to each other in equality nor some proportion.

I understand what you are trying to convey, I think you simply need a better base to "prove" that point.

I have been arguing for more resources to go into the Companions and the Adventure/Quest systems. So I totally get it.

 

You had many options with respect to how you would respond to my last post, however you chose or made a choice (from those options presented) to continue to pull lines out of context. Observing that "the beauty of a rich, detailed world is that we do have choices..." is clearly different the equating the two. If I had meant that a rich, detailed world defines "world depth", I would have stated the same. You are essentially telling me that my perception of what adds beauty to something is wrong. Please re-read my original post, rather than creating your own premises to argue against:

"I agree with the need for a deep and meaningful game. I have played most of the major fantasy RPGs over the past several decades and have always felt that detailed character development, customization, detailed plot and NPCs, unique items and an interactive world are ALL necessary for a successful and lasting game. Many of us can look back and remember the Ultima series (not many games are as memorable after 3 decades) and still hold them in highest regard (well, most of them...) because they focused on player and world. I have also played dozens of games that were very good, but didn't have the depth of character and world and were therefore, easily forgotten. I believe that one needs to be in a detailed and interactive world to be immersed and this has been my main point throughout all SoTA discussions. I do not believe forcing unnecessary tasks or making a system cumbersome or overly complex, necessarily equates with richness of world and plot. If I want to adventure from day one and make a living killing Orcs, Trolls and Brigands, then that's what I should be able to do. Similarly, if I'd prefer to become a master artisan and sell wares to finance my expeditions, that should be an option as well. The beauty of a rich, detailed world is that we do have choices and can have a different experience than someone else playing. I would be terribly disappointed if this became a "gold and monster grinder" game. I would be equally disappointed if Portalarium spends more time and resources building overly complex commerce and combat systems at the expense of creating a rich and detailed world. "

Also, some would also disagree with your use of poker and chess here -- I have found the ability to have choices in a rich detailed world to be a thing of beauty. I'm sure that there are many poker and chess players who feel that their respective games have lots of depth and many qualities they would consider "beautiful". And, to state that neither of these are overburdened with complexity seems very subjective (some can be quite intimidated playing these games).

Don't forget that in both games, there are rules -- let's look at the rules, cards, chess pieces and board as our SoTA world. Because all of these things exist, you are afforded many options and therefore can make choices which you say, "actually end up constructing a deep and detailed experience each session". SO, using your logic, having a multitude of choices can lead to a deep and detailed experience -- thank goodness we had all of those preexisting components building a solid game foundation (or SoTA world?).

If you disagree with my opinion, that is fine and can be very constructive. Please read my original post. I'm glad that you've been arguing for more resources to go into the Companions and the Adventure/Quest systems, but I don't think you totally get it.

 

This "Combat Card Game" is innovative ... checked
Some Players like it ... checked
I've tried to understand it ... checked
I've tried to play with it ... checked
I don't like it ... checked


For me, it's like in other game with whole new combat systems. The ideas behind them is, the new game should be innovative and differ from the other games on the market. But, in most cases, the new combat system did not really work as intended, are complicated and/or makes no fun.

There is a standard combat system, which is used for "centuries", it's easy to use, most of the players knowing and like it ...

So, why should a company develop something new, when the time to develop this, could be more usefull in other things, especially if the team is so small like the one of Shroud of the Avatar?


Please Lord British and the other guys of Portalarium, put the "Card Game" in the waste dump, and spend your time for the rest of the game.

 

Many players don't want to use this "standard combat system" anymore. I can't stand it. I think it would ruin the whole combat aspect of the game for me. It is so utterly boring and repetitive. It's like eating the same dish over and over and over again and people say: "Eat it again, you know what it tastes like and you already ate it before."

I want something different, something new. So I embrace every attempt on a new combat system. Will it work as "effective" as the "standard system"? Probably not but I don't care as long as it is fun and as long as it is different!

 

Then just use the Dallas mode were you only have to know which button you should hit. It is in, you only have to skill it.

I personally like the new system, I don't have to follow known paths, every fight is new and I always can blame the glyph system when I lost in pvp^^

 

OK, my final thoughts on the Card System...

I just wonder How long it will take to get 80 skill points for the skill system?

How many points will we start with? And how many points we get each time we level up?

 

No thanks, I want them to keep developing this. I don't want the old tried and true MMO hot bar.

Oh, and games haven't been around for centuries.

 

My 2 cents.. I don't really understand the card system but I don't like what I know about it. I'll try to give it time and see if I can find the fun in it but it just feels dumb.

 

when you tried it what didn't work? Not much to work with by what you said.

 

Chess has been around for a thousand years or more...

 

Yes, it has. But has no bearing whatsoever on my post which was commenting on this line:

"There is a standard combat system, which is used for "centuries", it's easy to use, most of the players knowing and like it ..."

 

Ok, fair enough. I scrolled up to try to get some context, but missed that. Thanks for the clarification.