Bug with gaining extra cards, more than in the vualt

[bein]

Ok, again, sorry if this is a duplicate post. I did search the forums first.  this is another exploit I found. 

I have a 4 character group that i'm taking through story mode.  i'm I currently in the middle of skinsaw on normal, but they were boring me so I wanted a new character. I dropped out Kyra, Harsk, and Seoni, and just went with Meri to farm Poison Pill on legendary.  (she can do it faster on her own) 

Ok so while farming on my 4th or 5th run I ran across an ally I already had with Seoni.  (Father Z !!)  So I was immediately worried I lost father z and all of Seoni's other cards.  But no... I checked and now both Meri and Seoni have a copy of Father Z, however there is only 1 copy of Father Z in the vault. 
 

Issue, When you are calculating what cards can come from the vault to create a location deck, you are not taking into account the quantities currently held by other "experienced players" in their current decks in the experienced player pool. I think  Those should be blocked out, however I dont' think that you are locking experienced characters per story save.   This is an issue because now it become more complicated on tracking which cards to lock out and when.

 

I would expect each new story to start with a clean vault. (ie, if sioni has a unique card in story 1, I can still get it with Lem on story 2).  But I can drag "experienced" characters from one story save to another. So in theory I could end up with any number of , Father z for example.   I can drop an experienced character out of one Story save, back to the experienced pool then pick up that character in the same story, or in another story save....  But at the same time, when I start a new story I would expect all the cards in my vault available for characters on that save regardless of what my other story characters have in their deck.  So the solution is more complicated than just "check experienced pool player decks before making location decks"

i'm not sure how you will ever calculate the correct number of cards that could be available at any one time.  Perhaps this is a feature and there is always the very real likelihood I don't understand the relationship between the game mechanics that you all are trying for, but it seems like an exploit to me.

 

[Aarik D]

Hey everyone!

 

This is working by design! 

 

Thanks!

[Longshot11]

Ok, again, sorry if this is a duplicate post. I did search the forums first.  this is another exploit I found. 

 

I have a 4 character group that i'm taking through story mode.  i'm I currently in the middle of skinsaw on normal, but they were boring me so I wanted a new character. I dropped out Kyra, Harsk, and Seoni, and just went with Meri to farm Poison Pill on legendary.  (she can do it faster on her own) 

 

Ok so while farming on my 4th or 5th run I ran across an ally I already had with Seoni.  (Father Z !!)  So I was immediately worried I lost father z and all of Seoni's other cards.  But no... I checked and now both Meri and Seoni have a copy of Father Z, however there is only 1 copy of Father Z in the vault. 

 

Issue, When you are calculating what cards can come from the vault to create a location deck, you are not taking into account the quantities currently held by other "experienced players" in their current decks in the experienced player pool. I think  Those should be blocked out, however I dont' think that you are locking experienced characters per story save.   This is an issue because now it become more complicated on tracking which cards to lock out and when.

 

I would expect each new story to start with a clean vault. (ie, if sioni has a unique card in story 1, I can still get it with Lem on story 2).  But I can drag "experienced" characters from one story save to another. So in theory I could end up with any number of , Father z for example.   I can drop an experienced character out of one Story save, back to the experienced pool then pick up that character in the same story, or in another story save....  But at the same time, when I start a new story I would expect all the cards in my vault available for characters on that save regardless of what my other story characters have in their deck.  So the solution is more complicated than just "check experienced pool player decks before making location decks"

 

i'm not sure how you will ever calculate the correct number of cards that could be available at any one time.  Perhaps this is a feature and there is always the very real likelihood I don't understand the relationship between the game mechanics that you all are trying for, but it seems like an exploit to me.

 

This is co-op game, there can't be an 'exploit' per se, if no one is being harmed by it. If a player likes to farm for multiple Deathbane Crossbows - more power to him. I discovered this issue some time ago, got my Lini two Amulets of Mighty Fists, and then decided this build isn't working anyway. At any rate - it would be boring to 'farm' for the most powerful items, as it takes away from the strategy of the game, but if each player can chose what's to their liking.

 

Also, I can see no way of  them 'fixing' this, as the this thing you propose (keeping loot lists per Party (or a Story save)) contradicts the way the physical game runs. In the card game, you can play with a maximum of 6 players at any time; if you want to start a new party - you have to disassemble all old character decks and return them to the box, so you new heroes have a chance at the same loot that was in the old ones' decks. In the App, you can run countless heroes within a single save file (it saves adventure progress, not characters, as far as I'm aware), however, so what they're doing is the equivalent of the physical game - when you start a new party build, everything that is not in their decks is fair game. To overcome this , they should forbid you to form a party of experienced heroes who have contradicting decks (exceeding the normal numbers of a card in the Vault), and this seems far more confusing and undesirable. In the end, this is an issue best left to a player's conscience and taste, and not dictated by code limitations.

[Brainwave]

Well they could run a check of all cards in decks before a scenario starts or when a character is added to a group to make sure the total number of different cards don't go over the amount of those cards available in the vault. Then either not allow that character to join or have a window popping up allowing deck reorganization until the decks are correct, or even just a warning window saying something like "you have more copies of cards in at least one character deck than are available in the vault" with proceed anyway, or replace with basic cards options. That's just off the top of my head, I'm sure something better than that could be designed.

 

But all of that said... This seems like a real edge case type situation. I would imagine most people are going to create a group and play that group as is, adding characters to groups later seems more like a card game thing when a new player might join on a particular get together than with this game where you're pretty much playing solo, mostly. When characters are added, I would also think they would mostly be brand new versions that would only have basic cards anyway. Like if you started a group with Lem and Lini and then later unlocked Ezren, you'd probably be adding a fresh Ezren to the group, not one with all kinds of unique cards in his deck.

 

And even when it does come up, as pointed out in another thread, you only keep those extra copies as long as you permanently keep them in decks. As soon as you toss one of those extra copies of Father Z into the vault, it's gone forever, as the game will only allow you to add back cards when that card should exist based on vault limitations. And I also agree with Longshot in that this is not a competitive game, so it's not hurting anyone else if a particular player is taking advantage of a situation. If I wanted to fix a game so that I had 6 characters with Father Z in their decks, I could do so and it would not matter one bit to anyone else. For the same reason I'd like to see an undo option at some point that could redo your last action, including rolls, since I've accidentally rolled early a couple times. Yes, someone else could use that to reroll a million times to basically cheat out a win, but why do I care if they do that. I know I wouldn't do it and what they choose to do doesn't really matter (and you could put in options to disable something like that in multiplayer if it was a problem).

 

So in the end while this is a possibility and I wouldn't mind a check being put in place to watch for this, it seems like a really unimportant thing. I mean someone could also farm the same mission 50 times until they get every single possible card upgrade and I also consider that to be close to cheating, since I don't think that level of mission farming was really intended, but I don't care about that either because I can make the decision myself to just not play that way.

[bein]

That's cool! just doesn't seem like its how you'd want this to work.  Yeah 'exploit' might be a little harsh, but it is a scenario that can give players an advantage and isn't something you can do with the paper game.  I was using the example I had, but this can happen with any card, including ones that come from chests. which diminishes their appeal, and indirectly gold sales.   idk, just seems like if I have 1 in the vault I shouldn't be able to eventually get 4 copies of it on a single character. (which this behavior allows) 


Thank you for the reply, glad this is working as intended! 


 

[FatePAC]

I think it only works for the normal cards. The extra cards from the chests will disappear if you exceed the copies in the vault. I had it happen to me once and i did not want to risk my item by testing it again. Can someone verify?

[zeroth_hour]

Well, I think that's really the only way you can bring characters from multiple virtual "boxes" in.  In the physical game if you did that someone would have to give up their item (which would make someone sad).  But think about online multiplayer, nobody would want that, so in this game both people get it (yay!)