Balance/Strategy - Remove retroactive combos

rbfrgsp

is existing content considered a work in progress, or a set in stone finished product? Because I would like to suggest the removal of retroactive combo effects.

Right now, if I have two patron cards, and let's say they both have a single use effect, and each has a 2-card combo effect. For example, draw one additional card; Gain two gold and two power. (cawww).

Currently, it doesn't matter which order I play these cards: as soon as the 2nd is laid, I gain the 2-card bonus for BOTH cards.

This leads to some absolutely stinky combos that allow you to one-shot an opponent if you are patient.

(Example: in a recent game with Crows, Hunding, Pellin and Hlaalu, my opponent reached 42 and forced me to catch up from about 38. With extra cards from the crow, the Hlaalu patron card cash-in, the gold generation from Hlaalu, plus the 2-patrons-1-Turn combo from Hlaalu cards, I was able to add 50 prestige in a single turn and get an unanswerable sudden death win by hitting 80+.

This is not a great state for the game to be in.

But if you were to remove the retroactivity of combos on previously-laid cards, you might redress some of this imbalance. Is an additional card draw likely to net you something more useful than two gold, two power? If not, take the safe option. But you shouldn't get both.

I think this would help balance the performance and popularity of certain decks, and it would create more chances for important, strategic decision-making.

SilverBride

These aren't retroactive combos because they are all being played in the same turn. The cards don't need to be played in any certain order, and the play and combo effect should trigger for all the cards played.

rbfrgsp

You have correctly observed the current state of play, yes. In my post, I am saying that the order in which cards are played within the individual turns should dictate the combo. It would inevitably create a much more strategic order of play (you would have to weight the benefits of each potential combo sequence), and I believe it would address a couple of the balance issues between the decks.

SilverBride

rbfrgsp wrote: »

...I am saying that the order in which cards are played within the individual turns should dictate the combo.

We do not need to micromanage combos this way. The combo effects are triggered when the combo requirement has been met in that turn. It doesn't matter what order they are laid down on the table, the requirement was still met.

spartaxoxo

No. They shouldn't do that because it makes the game a lot more tedious because you literally just sit there reading each card, doing the math, etc doing nothing while you figure out what move you want to make. I played the game this way early on because I assumed that was how it worked in the beginning, and the game became drastically more fun when I realized it didn't. I wouldn't be surprised if many of those people everyone hates to match against who take forever and a day to make a move are people under the impression it matters what order they played their combo every single time, rather than just a handful of situations they should be able to recognize while waiting for their opponent.

rbfrgsp

spartaxoxo wrote: »

No. They shouldn't do that because it makes the game a lot more tedious because you literally just sit there reading each card, doing the math, etc doing nothing while you figure out what move you want to make. I played the game this way early on because I assumed that was how it worked in the beginning, and the game became drastically more fun when I realized it didn't. I wouldn't be surprised if many of those people everyone hates to match against who take forever and a day to make a move are people under the impression it matters what order they played their combo every single time, rather than just a handful of situations they should be able to recognize while waiting for their opponent.

Well that's just different tastes. Because to me, those additional calculations and tactical choices would make the whole game a much deeper, richer, and more enjoyable experience. I would rather spend 20mins playing one game with real strategic choices, than playing three games within the same time that amount to churning decks as fast as possible.

Everyone's different. It would be interesting to find out if all those "slow players" you say people dislike would actually prefer the game as it actually is now, or how they thought it was meant to be played.

spartaxoxo

rbfrgsp wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

No. They shouldn't do that because it makes the game a lot more tedious because you literally just sit there reading each card, doing the math, etc doing nothing while you figure out what move you want to make. I played the game this way early on because I assumed that was how it worked in the beginning, and the game became drastically more fun when I realized it didn't. I wouldn't be surprised if many of those people everyone hates to match against who take forever and a day to make a move are people under the impression it matters what order they played their combo every single time, rather than just a handful of situations they should be able to recognize while waiting for their opponent.

Well that's just different tastes. Because to me, those additional calculations and tactical choices would make the whole game a much deeper, richer, and more enjoyable experience. I would rather spend 20mins playing one game with real strategic choices, than playing three games within the same time that amount to churning decks as fast as possible.

Everyone's different. It would be interesting to find out if all those "slow players" you say people dislike would actually prefer the game as it actually is now, or how they thought it was meant to be played.

Well, yes, ofc it's different tastes. But, it's just a no from me, dog. I would probably have stopped playing ToT long ago if it actually worked this way because it was tedious. There's also been plenty of complaints about the timer being too long. Probably the most consistent complaint about TOT outside of people who think it's too RNG. I think it wouldn't add anything to make it richer and deeper because I don't think slowing things down for it's own sake accomplishes that. I think it will just feel like a rip-off that you don't get what the card says on it, and that it doesn't add tactical depth because the only time it could really even start to do that is long combos. And if someone is doing a long combo, it's gonna just be them doing basic elementary school math for a while and then having a devastating turn regardless.

rbfrgsp

See I read those threads about _90 seconds_ being too long for a turn, and I think that those players don't appreciate that there are complex, logic-tree outcomes-based decisions to be weighed once you get past the midpoint of the game. Are those people just churning decks and matching colours? At no point has 90 seconds seemed like a drag and, most often when another player is finishing their goes very very quickly, they also end up losing very, very quickly, too.

SilverBride

90 seconds feels like eternity to me.

Heartrage

The problem is that the game is already balanced over the fact that every cards will combo from each others retroactively. It would make the duke deck and other combo deck much weaker compared to pelin or ansei and they would have to redesign either one to make them competitive.

rbfrgsp

Duke of Crows has many cards with a one card power, and then a 3-card combo power. Shifting those to a 2-card combo would mean the deck is not needed to irrelevance, while removing the tedious "draw card" spam that the purple deck encourages.

El_Borracho

rbfrgsp wrote: »

See I read those threads about _90 seconds_ being too long for a turn, and I think that those players don't appreciate that there are complex, logic-tree outcomes-based decisions to be weighed once you get past the midpoint of the game. Are those people just churning decks and matching colours? At no point has 90 seconds seemed like a drag and, most often when another player is finishing their goes very very quickly, they also end up losing very, very quickly, too.

I don't think anyone cares how long a turn is as long as your opponent is actively playing cards. Its when someone takes 90 seconds to burn a one coin card for a 2 coin card. Or uses the entire 90 seconds for the complicated combo of "play Midnight Raid and a second Red Eagle card then quit" move.

rbfrgsp

I dunno, there was another thread and some of the posts definitely had a vibe of "90 seconds is too long in any circumstances". Slowing the game when it isn't needed is awful behaviour but so is pressuring players to finish fast and not use their full allotment of time. 90 seconds isn't a great amount and patience is a virtue 😁

El_Borracho

@rbfrgsp I happen to think the timer is too long, only because it allows players to slow play on purpose even when they don't have to. I think the timer should be irrelevant as long as you are playing your cards. I'd be fine with having no timer/a shorter timer along with a mechanic that ends your turn if you don't play a card within a set time frame, for instance a 30 second timer with a cut off time of 5 seconds per card after that. Sure, you could slow play 8 Crow cards, but that even if that happened, that would only be 70 seconds. But the person would be playing that whole time

I know this is a video game and not poker, but in poker, it is rude to slow play. Factor in that poker plays for real money, where TOT is about points and reward bags, and there really is no valid reason to sit and do nothing with your cards just because you can

Kappachi

Retroactive combos are part of what makes this card game unique and fun to play. Removing them would only hurt the balance as many cards would need to completely be reworked to still be relevant and I think it'd end up with even more imbalance as you wouldn't want to just leave it as it is now and simply remove retroactive combos.

SilverBride

rbfrgsp wrote: »

...90 seconds isn't a great amount and patience is a virtue...

Patience is important in real life situations where it is necessary, not when trying to relax in a card game in an MMO.

Kappachi

SilverBride wrote: »

rbfrgsp wrote: »

...90 seconds isn't a great amount and patience is a virtue...

Patience is important in real life situations where it is necessary, not when trying to relax in a card game in an MMO.

Card games require lots of thinking, especially if you wanna pull off earning 30+ prestige in a single turn in order to come back or steal the victory, it takes a lot of clicking through every single thing, e.g. looking at your opponent's next 5 card draw or potential draws, looking through your potential draws, analyzing everything that could happen and trying to formulate the pattern to win. It's a competitive game by nature with lots of skill and strategy required to win.

rbfrgsp

Kappachi wrote: »

Retroactive combos are part of what makes this card game unique and fun to play. Removing them would only hurt the balance as many cards would need to completely be reworked to still be relevant and I think it'd end up with even more imbalance as you wouldn't want to just leave it as it is now and simply remove retroactive combos.

I am quite happy with the compromise - I made the suggestion in the OP before I knew about the flavour of the druid king deck. Having at least one patron whose cards allow for this kind of sequenced, strategic play makes me happy and, like you say, avoids the potentially gamebreaking need to rework all of the existing cards.