How will basic card thinning work?

[delpheki]

I know it's been brought up and talked about in other topics but I wanted a post dedicated to it.

 

I am wondering about things like amulet of life and potion of glibness that I don't really want to get rid of whether there will be any sort of toggle switch or if they will become salvageable once Adventure 3 comes out or what.

[Rhygar]

Those are non treasure cards don't think they will be salvageable.

[delpheki]

I don't think so either but it's a system already built into the app for eliminating cards and it would allow us to pick and choose.

[_Harwin_]

I don't know that he's talking about salvage?

 

In the physical card game, once you start one of the scenarios (forget if it was 3 or 4), it said that any time you put a "basic" boon/bane back in the box, you actually take it out entirely (we started storing ours in the old adventure boxes) so that you stop encountering it.

 

This causes things like goblins to slowly stop appearing as threats without stopping immediately.

 

I assume the OP's question was what if you don't *want* to thin some of the boons out?  (I remember we wondered what to do in the physical game about the Cure spell, since we wanted Harsk to have access to it since he had a shot at recharging it vs. Major Cure).

[delpheki]

I just have no idea how it will work and want to know if I should start hoarding.  I had planned to add a spell card feat to Sajan and just pick up a fresh cure every game but if cure is removed from the available pool it would be a mistake.

[Rhygar]

I don't know that he's talking about salvage?

 

In the physical card game, once you start one of the scenarios (forget if it was 3 or 4), it said that any time you put a "basic" boon/bane back in the box, you actually take it out entirely (we started storing ours in the old adventure boxes) so that you stop encountering it.

 

This causes things like goblins to slowly stop appearing as threats without stopping immediately.

 

I assume the OP's question was what if you don't *want* to thin some of the boons out?  (I remember we wondered what to do in the physical game about the Cure spell, since we wanted Harsk to have access to it since he had a shot at recharging it vs. Major Cure).

Now I don't know about the physical game but if that mechanic gets implemented when future packs get added in I hope there is an option for basic boons to be kept in game. As I can see what you mean by finding it useful to have certain lower basic boons still in game

[Brainwave]

 

I don't know that he's talking about salvage?

 

In the physical card game, once you start one of the scenarios (forget if it was 3 or 4), it said that any time you put a "basic" boon/bane back in the box, you actually take it out entirely (we started storing ours in the old adventure boxes) so that you stop encountering it.

 

This causes things like goblins to slowly stop appearing as threats without stopping immediately.

 

I assume the OP's question was what if you don't *want* to thin some of the boons out?  (I remember we wondered what to do in the physical game about the Cure spell, since we wanted Harsk to have access to it since he had a shot at recharging it vs. Major Cure).

Now I don't know about the physical game but if that mechanic gets implemented when future packs get added in I hope there is an option for basic boons to be kept in game. As I can see what you mean by finding it useful to have certain lower basic boons still in game

Actually in the physical game, while basic banes were always removed when banished after a certain point, you had the choice on boons as to whether to remove them or not. This created the exact situation you describe where a few good basics were generally left in by most players, like Cure.

 

It's been hinted that the app won't work that way, which is disappointing because the main problem with that method was keeping track of what cards you'd pulled from the game for a particular group - which seems like it would be much easier to do with a video game.

 

As far as I've seen they haven't been specific about what method will be used instead of this to remove basics, and I agree I'd like to know as well as this is a pretty major mechanic of the game once you get to the point where basics and then elites need to be removed.

[Longshot11]

Yeah, removing the decision what boons and when should be removed from the game sounds like a major gaffe to me.

If they do, though, I can only assume it's going to be somewhat curated, instead of a blanket "remove 20% Basic boons for each scenario in AD3" - otherwise, by some weird chance, there'can be no more Blessings of the Gods left, and so, not enough blessings period. And if they do curate it - then maybe some specific cards can be exclude from the removal clause - like Cure, Strength, Agility, Sage or Troubadour which remain awesome all the way to AD6.

[Borissimo]

After seeing way too many questions and misunderstandings about this, I've decided to make a thread and hopefully settle this issue once and for all.

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/87122-confused-about-how-box-thinning-will-work-read-this/

 

At the risk of repeating myself, I feel compelled to note here that it simply would not have been feasible for Obsidian to do in the digital game what Paizo did in the physical game. The decision to handle box thinning in the way they did is not a "gaffe" but a necessity.

[Brainwave]

Yeah, removing the decision what boons and when should be removed from the game sounds like a major gaffe to me.

If they do, though, I can only assume it's going to be somewhat curated, instead of a blanket "remove 20% Basic boons for each scenario in AD3" - otherwise, by some weird chance, there'can be no more Blessings of the Gods left, and so, not enough blessings period. And if they do curate it - then maybe some specific cards can be exclude from the removal clause - like Cure, Strength, Agility, Sage or Troubadour which remain awesome all the way to AD6.

If I had to guess, since they already do this with quest mode, my suspicion is that they will remove cards based on their perceived quality of card. It also could just be a blanket random X% per scenario or adventure set as well, but either way this could easily lead to stuff getting removed that a particular player would prefer to leave in as you mention. Another example would be Detect Magic. A pretty cheap card but basically a free possible explore if encountered. I suspect a number of players in the card game left it in even though it's not an ultra powerful card.

[Brainwave]

In response to Boris' post -

 

I don't think it's necessary because I don't agree with their underlying logic in how they explain that it's necessary.

 

This idea that two parties will "merge" in multiplayer seems like the problem instead of banishing cards. I'm not sure I see how that would be needed and it seems like it could create all kinds of other problems well beyond card lists. Why not, once again, treat it like the card game where you have a party going through the adventures (which has a certain list of cards removed from the game associated with that party). If you want to add characters to that party you can do so, keeping the same list of cards removed from the game as they are new characters being added to the existing group. And really in terms of merging, it doesn't seem that difficult to just determine what group is the "main group" and go to that groups deck list in terms of cards that have been removed, anyway.

 

It seems like the idea is that all multiplayer characters will be transferable to any multiplayer game. Okay so first off you've got the issue of having 4 deathbane crossbows in one group. Then the different power levels. If I'm playing through the scenarios and I want to play with other people, I don't necessarily want to get people who've farmed every possible upgrade to completely trivialize my game. And then the bugs with this merging process, I can hardly imagine.

 

But the real point is, if you want to implement some new multiplayer system that works different from the card game, kind of like quest mode, that's fine. But I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in that I care a lot more about playing the game as originally intended than being able to join any multiplayer game with an already existing character. Why not implement the actual base card game rules for single player or as a separate mode, so that people who are getting this game because they enjoyed the card game for what it is, can continue to play under those same rules?

[Longshot11]

After seeing way too many questions and misunderstandings about this, I've decided to make a thread and hopefully settle this issue once and for all.

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/87122-confused-about-how-box-thinning-will-work-read-this/

 

At the risk of repeating myself, I feel compelled to note here that it simply would not have been feasible for Obsidian to do in the digital game what Paizo did in the physical game. The decision to handle box thinning in the way they did is not a "gaffe" but a necessity.

Wait a sec...So it appears I completely misunderstood. I thought that, for example, in 3-1 they'll cull random 5% of all Basics, then in 3-2 another 5%, and so on...

While it turns out, they'll cull out different cards every scenario, so we can't even talk about 'removal from game' in that sense. Well, on the bright side, this means those Cures should be available - and not only within scenario decks, but in fact, with this system, there's no reason at all why there would be 'removed' cards during Deck Rebuild. They can just give you *all* the Basics - and it's obvious you won't pick the bad ones (which you would've normally RFG in the card game), while you can freely select from the good one (which you wouldn't RFG in the card game). So, that's good in my book.

On the flip side, depending on the %'s of removed cards, it could mean in AD6 I might encounters Goblins, even if I already killed twice very existing Goblin ever back in AD5. So , that would be a touch anti-climactic.

I get why Obsidian are doing this, which doesn't mean I have to like it. I'm highly unlikely to ever play multiplayer, so if I find my game is crippled for it - yeah, I'm not a happy camper. On the other hand, if I'm correct in my assumption that you'll get all Basics at deck rebuild, regardless of in-scenario culling - this actually sounds good enough, and maybe even better than the card game (if the culled % advances faster than I could banish Basics in the card game). Oh, and my happiness level will be severely influenced by the fact, if after I've defeated 2 Sirens post 5-1 (celebratory cause for me in the card game) , I continue still to encounter those b**ches way more than I should.

Bottom line, I'm grumpy about this but I'll reserve my right to moan depending on the perceived impact Obsidian's new-fangled system has on my games.

 

PS: Your thoughts on we at least being spared the 'acquire/banish Basics' dilemma are spot on.

[Borissimo]

In response to Boris' post -

 

I don't think it's necessary because I don't agree with their underlying logic in how they explain that it's necessary.

 

So I'm curious, Brainwave. What exactly do you think is happening here? Do you think Obsidian lied when they said it was a technical necessity, and they're really just doing this for some nefarious reasons they don't want to share with us? Or do you just think they're incompetent and don't understand the programming of their own game?

 

Perhaps you are a genius software developer, so I have a puzzle for you. I'm playing solo Merisiel and, halfway through AD3, I decide it's just too hard. So at that point, I add her to my game with Kyra and Valeros, who are the same point in the adventure. Before Merisiel gave up her on solo career, she found and banished two Maces. Kyra and Valeros haven't found any. Are the Maces in the box when Merisiel joins their game? No, of course not -- we're using Kyra and Valeros's box, not Merisiel's! But wait, what if play 1 scenario solo with Kyra, banish my first Siren ever (yay), and then I add Kyra and Valeros to Merisiel's party, rather than adding Merisiel to theirs -- then the Maces should be missing from the box, right? But not the Siren. But if I add Valeros and Merisiel to Kyra's party, then I do need to lose the Siren, but not the Maces -- so wait, tell me again how I'm going to do all this without storing a unique instance of the vault for every single character on my iPad?

 

Look, I'm not a software developer, so I don't know what's happening here. But if the people who are writing code for a project tell me that something is a necessity for technical reasons, I'm inclined to trust them. They might be wrong, but having actually seen (and heck, written!) the code, they're more likely to be right than I am.

Edited May 25, 2016 by Borissimo

[Brainwave]

I don't think they lied. What I'm saying is clearly they are prioritizing party merging as a mechanic for multiplayer. it appears that this is a major reason why each group having its own "deck list" won't work and I agree that in your example it would be a problem. Personally I think it still could work as long as you pick a "main group" when you merge groups. But even if I were to agree that this is a problem, what I'm saying is because I don't think this is a necessary or important mechanic to even have in the game (the ability to merge any character to any game) - having to change a mechanic from the card game because of it is certainly not necessary. In other words, don't do it at all! Or just have it as a separate mode like quest mode.

 

Coding wise I'm not trying to come across as a master programmer, but storing data is a pretty basic element of it. Now if they were to say that with treasure mode cards there might be too much to keep track of, then I might buy that, but I'd still like a mode where I could play the game with the normal base cards with the base rules.

 

Look I'm sure you don't think having this feature is as important as I do. I get that. Probably most people dont. I'm just saying that personally, if it's either A) implement party merging or B) have the ability to play the game the way it's originally intended I would greatly have preferred B. And if you're trying to tell me that there was literally no way to code a game that would keep track of boons still in game for a couple saved parties, then yea, sorry, I'm not buying it.

[PinkRose]

There are definitely two different camps coming at this game.

The solo gamer and the multiplayer.

I can't imagine the dance that Obsidian does with each feature trying to make both parties happy.

[Hannibal_PJV]

I am definitely looking more that multiplayer, but i can understand those who prefer solo, so it is not easy task to make each and everyone completely happy!

[_Harwin_]

Actually I was thinking this morning that this system makes sense for solo too.  

 

Suppose you're farming legendaries for gold - or in quest mode especially.  At a certain point you probably have every boon you want - so you don't actually care about getting higher quality boons dropped - you're full.  But every time you play a quest you cull more and more basic cards out - so the quests are getting harder even though you're not actually getting better.

 

This was never a problem in the physical card game because you didn't keep replaying scenarios that way.  

 

I mean, I'm not in love with the 20% cull, but I can see how the original (card game) system has problems with this too.

 

 

(Side note: We obviously misunderstood the rules when playing the physical game - we thought we *had* to banish boons, even if we didn't want to(so we were desperate to hold onto a cure), and we thought we banished every basic card post-scenario whether we encountered it or not (if it made it into a location deck, and it was basic, it was leaving the game)).  

[Borissimo]

Ahhhh, okay Brainwave, I see where you're coming from. I actually agree with you there on a personal level. I don't think merging parties is all that important and I wouldn't have minded at all if Obsidian had simply implemented "one save, one box, no jumping across saves or boxes."

 

At the same time, even though I disagree with merging parties, I can see why Obsidian chose to allow it. Say a new player Bob downloads the game, doesn't know anything about it, and plays a few scenarios solo each with Kyra and Merisiel. Then he decides to combine them ... and the game won't let him. We understand why they have to be separate, but Bob doesn't. If the game worked this way, there would be a lot of Bobs.

 

And Harwin, that's a great point. I hadn't considered the impact of farming on the box. You could even farm scenarios just to get all the basic boons out of the box and guarantee a concentration of high quality boons for all future scenarios. That's another great reason why the physical system wouldn't have worked in the digital version.

[LunarWolf]

So basically, you always have a small chance for the low level boons you want to acquire to come up even if not in every game. But still, if you REALLY want access to a given boon, then just make sure its already in your deck.

[Nathan Davis]

A lot of good points in this thread. I figure I should give you the official word.

 

We discussed a number of ways we could do this, and when I asked the opinion of the original designers, they suggested culling all Basics at once (but not Blessings). I thought that would be a bit extreme and I always liked the gradual shedding of Basics/Elites from the box. I briefly considered tracking which cards were culled on a per Character basis, but that was a fair amount of data to save.

 

We decided to do a couple of things with it.

 

First, we separated the concepts of the Vault used in a Scenario to create Location decks and so forth from the Vault used to fill in missing cards in Card Selection. So if you are missing a spell slot in your Card List, Cure will always be there.

 

Second, we simulate the effect of culling cards by removing a percentage of Basics, starting in Deck 3, that grows with each Scenario you do. We never cull 100% of them, so you will still run into the occasional Basic or Elite in deck 6.

[Rhygar]

A lot of good points in this thread. I figure I should give you the official word.

 

We discussed a number of ways we could do this, and when I asked the opinion of the original designers, they suggested culling all Basics at once (but not Blessings). I thought that would be a bit extreme and I always liked the gradual shedding of Basics/Elites from the box. I briefly considered tracking which cards were culled on a per Character basis, but that was a fair amount of data to save.

 

We decided to do a couple of things with it.

 

First, we separated the concepts of the Vault used in a Scenario to create Location decks and so forth from the Vault used to fill in missing cards in Card Selection. So if you are missing a spell slot in your Card List, Cure will always be there.

 

Second, we simulate the effect of culling cards by removing a percentage of Basics, starting in Deck 3, that grows with each Scenario you do. We never cull 100% of them, so you will still run into the occasional Basic or Elite in deck 6.

So everyone's favorite goblin does get a wee chance to make a guest appearance at AP6 ? Yessss!