|
|
Post by DeathsAdvocate (Admin) on Feb 22, 2020 20:02:40 GMT
(Remember keep the debates on discord. Just post vote/opinion here.) Currently we have two draw turned on for fun in the early stages of the game. Whether that stays or not long term is still up for debate, but so far we are leaning against it.
It is now the plan unless there is an overwhelming dislike for it. Notice there is a poll at the top of the thread: While the difference between one and two draw may seem small it is actually a massive game changing decision. Keep in mind we still plan on having custom game modes for friendly / casual matches. These polls are specifically related to the main ranked ladder for the long term gameplan:_________________ Other Related Poll: There has been a little confusion as to what direction we are moving with the project. The big concerns are splitting the player base and or alienating people who wanted one option over the other. So the object of this poll is to find out what the majority of people prefer. There are basically three options: Cloning the game directly, which is not sustainable long term, but is where we will be starting out of necessity as we need a foundation to build on. We are even using Duelysts assets. The second is largely copying the game but incorporating larger balance changes, and changing some design principals to put the focus back on the board. We will also eventually move away from Duelysts assets. And the last would really to just make a brand new game that only is using the basic mechanics, and or trying something extreme, like going back to the two draw era (Under contention as to whether that is considered extreme now, so it gets its own poll). There also is not really a reason we can not do all three, as the direct clone can continue to exist as an open source option even once we have moved on from it. And then the difference between option two and three is mostly a matter of how drastically we want to change things. Given again we will probably start with second option as a foundation. www.easypolls.net/poll.html?p=5e4b37d7e4b0bd55452cf912 |
|
|
|
Post by DeathsAdvocate (Admin) on Feb 22, 2020 20:03:43 GMT
Imported Trello Comments:
Atheistmantis Feb 4 at 4:25 PM
I haven't had the chance to try Draw 2, so i'd be inclined to say Draw 1. If in the early stages of the game it would be easier/more practical to have Draw 2, then we should have that, as long as it'd be just temporary.
DeathsAdvocate Feb 1 at 7:28 PM (edited)
@sibonz but that is prior to bloodborn spells and other major mechanic changes like creep?
sibon Feb 1 at 7:26 PM
it's almost entirely simple number changes - very few core set cards actually had different effects in patch 0.60 than what they currently do. add them as they were, set starting hand to 3, set cards per turn to 2
Qazzquimby Feb 1 at 7:11 PM
This may be worth a poll of the competitive players.
DeathsAdvocate Feb 1 at 7:08 PM (edited)
@sibonz But that requires undoing/changing a lot of current assets? I think we really ought to just be making the current game as close as possible, even with or without any adjustments at all.
sibon Feb 1 at 6:48 PM
We aren't going to have all the cards at once, and it makes the most sense to implement the core set of cards first. At least during this phase, having the game be 2 draw makes most sense. Patch 0.60 is imo what we should aim for, as it's widely agreed to be the most balanced (and well documented) patch of 2 draw
PB Jan 30 at 7:39 PM
@deathsadvocate I agree that 2 draw changes the game a lot, but I believe it is integral to how we currently know Duelyst. The player has to manage a dance between their hand and their mana pool as they decide which cards to replace and which they'll be able to afford to play depending on their decision to replace. I am personally a big fan of being able to draw a bunch of cards and choose which cards are too high or too low cost for the current situation and need to be replaced.
DeathsAdvocate Jan 30 at 12:17 PM (edited)
@qazzquimby For example it puts a lot of emphasis on low cost cards, making higher cost cards less valuable, because you need to be playing multiple cards per turn. Which results in higher cost cards now have to be that much stronger to be playable which leads to swingy top decks or just neglect of the high end. It reduces the resource management skill, and it also detracts from the deck building stage a bit as you do not have to work as hard at balancing a curve. It throws a lot of stuff out of wack.
Qazzquimby Jan 30 at 12:15 PM
@deathsadvocate What exactly makes it harder to balance?
DeathsAdvocate Jan 30 at 12:07 PM
While I loved 2 draw, it is much harder to balance and would be a different game. I am for sticking to 1 draw sadly.
|
|
|
|
Post by DeathsAdvocate (Admin) on Feb 27, 2020 16:50:05 GMT
It would be better to actually focus our balance changes on shifting the game to positional gameplay. 1-2draw does not affect this factor, 1-2 draw is a matter of consistency, resource management, curve emphasis, and combo/vs value.
1 draw can have the similar consistency to 2 draw in other ways like extra replace/more cycles. It puts its emphasis on resource management rather than playing as much as you can, having a balanced curve rather than light curve, and value over combo.
1 draw is inherently easier to balance. And value play is easier to make board centric than combo play. Given I am personally a johnny, and since I hope to aim to have similar consistency as 2 draw, combo will still be relevant. But it is much harder to have the value play in 2 draw.
Not to mention that we have a whole lot more balancing to do if we tried to go back to 2 draw.
|
|
|
|
Post by nowayitsj on Feb 27, 2020 20:05:36 GMT
The beauty of perma 2 draw like in 2015-early 2016 was that the game was super consistent for both players no matter the deck. It had a ton of depth due to basically having all your resources whenever, and having to play around a lot of your opponent's stuff more (due to them having stuff more likely). It allowed more decks than just midrange/aggro to exist more often too because of this, such as combo decks.
Now, to avoid confusion since I had this discussion earlier with someone, by consistency I don't mean just early curve. You still need to build your deck very well to BE consistent (9-12+ 2 drops for turn 1 plays for example). The consistency 2 draw gives which makes it so nice is the ability to draw answers or resources more often. Duelyst, especially since 1 draw, has been heavily dominated by "answer or die" minions, so being able to have outs more consistently is nice. It also creates more depth due to having to account for this on the other side of things.
Also, due to the game playing more 2 drops or swarming board a bit more earlier, it adds even more skill imo. It created this platform of decision making with the board where positioning and good trade patterns mattered a lot, due to having more on the board, thus more to trade into or avoid.
|
|
sibon
New Member
Posts: 1
|
Post by sibon on Feb 27, 2020 20:21:53 GMT
Very much agreed with J.
To get a good amount of consistency with 1 draw, we would need to design/implement/balance so many cantrips and tutors, for a result that will likely still be inferior to 2 draw, and far removed from anything Duelyst is or has been. At the very least I feel it is necessary that we start with 2 draw, as it functions far better than 1 draw with a smaller card pool (and right now our card pool is tiny).
1 draw ultimately would pose a far greater challenge to designers (and the programmers who have to implement any consistency elements) than simply implementing and balancing 2 draw as best we can.
|
|
blatm
New Member
Posts: 1
|
Post by blatm on Feb 27, 2020 22:20:35 GMT
Agree with 100% of what J and Sibon said. Patch 60 was the best game I've ever played, period. I know lots of people think that people who played 2draw are "nostalgic" or "biased", but I would caution that this can also go the other way too, as evidenced by the Trello comment above:
> Atheistmantis Feb 4 at 4:25 PM
> I haven't had the chance to try Draw 2, so i'd be inclined to say Draw 1. If in the early stages of the game it would be easier/more practical to have Draw 2, then we should have that, as long as it'd be just temporary.
I hope people who haven't played 2draw realize that it's extremely easy to have misconceptions about what it was like, and that there's a reason a large majority of players who played 2draw vastly prefer it to 1draw.
CHOOSE WISELY
|
|
|
|
Post by DeathsAdvocate (Admin) on Mar 12, 2020 0:09:04 GMT
After lots of discord discussion, I am still in favor of one draw, but I have a bit more neutral stance on it:
As the game stands there was already the ability to just build an on curve deck that does not require draw in 1 draw, which IMO tends to be one of the healthiest styles and I prefer it. There is a happy medium between being forced to play multiple things a turn that 2draw encourages, and running out of cards because your curve is to light in one draw. 1 draw keeps the emphasis on deck building and resource management to avoid these issues, which seems like a good thing, and one I enjoy. If you have a balanced curve you need to very carefully use your handsize and plan long term, rather than being constantly fed cards.
That being said having a more intricate late-game is a fairly compelling point for 2 draw, and one of the only ones specific to it that I have seen so far. I still hold my core design fears of because of the "need to play multiple cards per turn the higher curve stuff has to either be that much stronger and thus lead to swingy turns, and or it will get neglected." However I think we can probably solve this issue with a lot of effort in balance.
What it really comes down to here is macro/vs micro play. 1draw encourages more macro because you need to use your card-advantage carefully and plan ahead long term because if you blow your important stuff early you are in trouble later on, and it is this fun delicate dance. Conversely two draw has a ton more micro play with a lot more immediate decisions per turn, as well as the ability to consistently dig out what you need throughout the game rather than having to be conservative. I am obviously personally a fan of the slower paced macro play, rather than the higher stress micro play.
It again comes down to this preference of macro/micro. I think why people had such a good time with 2draw is because micro decisions are way more exciting as they are right in front of you, where as it can be hard to perceive the macro game, and even if you do understand the macro quite well it is not exciting for many. Combined with people enjoying the consistency of 2 draw leads to this strong nostalgic attachment to it.
There are pros and cons here, and I do not think one is inherently better than the other and is almost purely personal preference between micro and macro play. But between personal preference and the fact that we would have to start from scratch on years of progress for the game plus the inherent increased difficulty of balancing 2 draw, I am still against 2 draw being the long term plan.
|
|
MEgix
New Member
Posts: 9
|
Post by MEgix on Mar 12, 2020 12:13:30 GMT
I played a bit of 2-draw.
First I think one of the main reason the game was changed from 2-draw to 1 draw was that it will be much harder to balance on the long term. Since this project doesn't seem to be focused on the long term, once the cards present in 0.60 are finely balanced this shouldn't be an issue because there isn't a need for expansions.
The other issue I see with 2-draw is that, if I remember correctly, it was the infamous 2-4 meta. In this situation designing interesting cards of different mana costs is particularly difficult and potentially a waste of resources (I might go as far to say that at this point you might as well design 2-4-6-8 mana costs cards and half both the mana costs and the mana gain). Also deck diversity wasn't really a thing since the nuetral core was included across all factions (the extreme solution is doing as LoR and removing neutrals).
I am going to assume that this project wants to include only core set cards, so patch 0.60 is probably the best choice since the change to 1-draw had some problems at the start and it does not involved bloodbound spells.
In this context I think the duelyst-clone should continue to aim to 2-draw duelyst. If we reach the point of releasing a stand-alone game it depends. If it isn't going to be a "living-game" (involving expansions) I think 2-draw is fine as long as designed correctly (to avoid the problems mentioned earlier). On the other hand, if this potential new game involves continuos support I think the wiser decision is to design it with 1-draw in mind, since it's easier, involves established knowledge and (as 1-draw duelyst proves) can still lead to a fullfilling experience. At this point eventual lack of combo play should be solved with card design.
|
|
|
|
Post by Whoshim on Apr 2, 2020 12:36:21 GMT
I loved 2 Draw! It was a bit more of a tactical game than a card game at that point, since decks were more consistent. You were able to search for and find answers instead of getting blown out by cards like can happen in 1 Draw.
There are some concerns about future balance and whatnot, but the gameplay experience of 2 Draw is superior to 1 Draw.
|
|
|
|
Post by smash on Apr 2, 2020 12:40:59 GMT
I propose 3 draw: It's a compromise that makes everyone miserable.
|
|
