Confused about how box thinning will work? Read this!

[Narkon27]

As someone who has never played the physical game and has zero knowledge of how this change affects the future adventures, I have to admit I find the culling mechanic sounds more realistic. Would all basic potions disappear in a fantasy world if you progressed towards the end of the story? Probably not. Then again, in a fantasy game there are stores where you buy what you need, so what do I know?

 

I think the success of the new system will depend on the % of basic and elite boons/banes it removes. If it is only 30-40% at the very end of the entire campaign, then it will be a failure. If it is close to 80%, it will work. Probably. If this system starts with the 3rd adventure, then starting with 30% and going up by 15% for each adventure that follows, it would be a good compromise.

Edited May 26, 2016 by Narkon27

[Brainwave]

So for me, my interest in Pathfinder Adventures stems from wanting to get some more plays of the card game because my card game group fell apart. So I was hoping that this would replace that. Quest mode doesn't interest me that much long term, this could possibly change if more features are added but right now it's already getting pretty repetitive. What I'm looking for is the ability to replicate the card game experience and get some more playthroughs of that (story mode). While card culling isn't a top feature, whether it was intended to be this or not, it is a feature that did matter to me and I felt added some strategy to the game.

 

And keep in mind, this mechanic has been in all 3 of the existing Pathfinder card games, so it's not like Paizo just released Rise of the Runelords and has maybe reconsidered it for future releases. As far as I know, they intend to keep using it going forward with additional card game releases.

[Irgy]

 

I honestly don't think the side effects of the culling system were ever meant to be a critical part of the game strategy. 

 

It's Math.  Are we saying we can't consider simple Math now as an intended part of the game? There is no loot table in Pathfinder.  The loot table is literally... 

• How many cards are there of said type = x   
• How many cards are already out of the box of said type = y
• Probability of pulling said card from box = (1 / x-y) * 100%

So every single card you eliminate from the box increases the chances of encountering something in your adventure path range.  If you culled 0 cards from the box by the time you hit Adventure Path 6... you will not see many Adventure Path 6 cards when you run your story, unless you farm for them.  Which I guess is their intended effect because they want people to spend money/gold.   Obsidian is now determining our chances with that, in addition to adding more cards into our pools from the Treasure Chests.  

 

 

Um, this may come as a surprise to you, but I knew that. I can do maths by the way, I even have a maths degree. I can even spot that you should have written "1 / (x - y)". You're obviously missing the point.

 

Under the proposed system, they are still removing cards from the box, so you still have increased chances of getting the better cards. What's different is:

- You can't choose to not remove some specific boons

- You can't influence more generally which cards get removed

+ You don't have to spend time worrying about which cards get removed <- this is the part I called immersion breaking

- You can't apply skilful strategies to maximise the number of cards removed <- this is the bit I'm calling a trivial difference

+ People can't abuse the system to maximise the number of cards removed

 

To put it in perspective, all the skill you might apply over multiple games to remove additional cards will be equivalent to just playing one more game on an old mission before moving to the next one. In paper that never happened because who wants to spend all that time shuffling up the locations etc. just to replay an old mission. In the app the shuffle time is nothing and with difficulty settings replaying is encouraged. So skilfully removing more basics would be just a meaningless grind instead.

 

 

Some of the comments make me wonder if people didn't read the OP and think they're not removing basic cards at all.

 

One thing I really really think they should be doing, which I actually thought they were doing because it seemed like such an obvious thing to do (so isn't it good I reread the OP myself), is removing an increasingly larger %age of cards the further through the adventure path you are. So for instance 3.1 should have all the basics, while by 4.5 maybe 70% should be removed. The %s should match what a "typical party" would have removed by then just doing the missions once. Otherwise they're removing a whole lot less by the time the later missions come along, and that does suck. If they're really clever they should make the rate a function of both the mission number and the party size. Since that was a balance-affecting (for better or worse) element in the original design that big parties removed the basics faster.

 

By the way if you see the original thing I said on this topic, I'm not even all that much in favour of the idea. I just sound like I'm swinging one way because one side of the argument needs more help understanding the issue than the other at the moment.

Edited May 27, 2016 by Irgy

[Kamikazi]

I understand why they are doing it, and completely agree. One of the advantages of the app is the ability to replay missions. I've shepparded non-optimal builds of some of my character with "finished" optimal ones. Once you start down the box trimming path you can't go back and replay Poison Pill for gold as an example.

 

Using the percentage based thinning allows you to go back and replay mission, especially if you only want to try nightmare adventure 2 after completing adventure 3. Another case is replaying a earlier mission with a six person party.

[LAntorcha]

So to get rid of crap, your only choice is going to be:

- Go to a Card Banishing Location, hold the crap card in your hand, and throw it with the correct timming?

 

- Or the % thing...

 

No Way, man!

[Kamikazi]

So to get rid of crap, your only choice is going to be:

- Go to a Card Banishing Location, hold the crap card in your hand, and throw it with the correct timming?

 

- Or the % thing...

 

No Way, man!

Card banishing location trick won't work. Even if you do that it still goes back to the Vault the next time you start a run. The only culling will be a % based on which scenario and will be done only for that instance. There will be no vault tracking at all.

 

I suspect of the four scenarios there will be a 10%/20%/40%/60% or such. As you move into Deck 4/Scenario 4 territory it'll start with 75% of Basic deck cards.

[Borissimo]

First of all, thanks to everyone for the spirited discussion here! It's been a pleasure to read.

 

I have two regrets about the original post I made.

 

The first is that I neglected to quote this clarifying reply of Nathan's in Stormbringer's original thread:

 

One quick note: Elite and Basic card culling has no impact when it comes to filling your character deck with cards from the box in the card selection phase.

 

We do have sliding variable scale for doing this to mimic the effect of PACG. This culling method fits roughly between the standard PACG method (player chooses boons culled) and Organized Play method (auto-cull everything). We took a lot of care in this design decision heavily consulting with Paizo and Mike Selinker. If anything, they recommended going further away from the standard PACG method. We felt that maintaining the gradual draw-down of Basics and Elites was important to maintain and was something we could mimic in software quite easily.

 

Having this in the OP would have saved a few folks some time and nerves worrying about whether the % of culled cards will increase as the adventure path goes on. Although Obsidian hasn't stated the percentages, there will be progression and there will be scaling for party size.

 

My other regret is that I wrote the OP before it was pointed out (by Harwin and other users in this forum) that the original box culling method breaks down completely when players replay scenarios. This is another strong reason why PACG's original system would not have been good for the digital version. All in all, I'm glad that all the hours it would have taken Obsidian to implement vault tracking and all kinds of contingency checking ("if this party has played this scenario before, don't remove basics ...") can instead be spent giving us new adventures faster.

[wakasm]

My point was not to say you do not know math.  Please read the context over.  

 

IMO, the biggest issue is that the Obsidian decided at some point to do more than what the board game offers, which one paper, is great!   But in doing so, breaks the board game experience, which is all I wanted out of the app.   It can not be any more simple than that.

 

 I own all 3 real life board games, i own the minis for the game, i basically am the "whale" these companies dream of when it comes to foolishly parting with money from my wallet for a hobby, and I expected to be able to play all 3 games in the app eventually.  That's all I ever wanted out of it.   And based on their decisions... I'll never get that wish. 

 

How there is not a mode that simply mirrors the board game exactly is beyond me, except that they decided other things were more important.  

 

If they wanted to do more, they should have left all the extras - treasure chests, auto-culling, multiplayer, to quest mode or some other mode designed for replayability/farming/flexibility.  But there should be a mode that mimics the card game rules exactly, One Box, and they failed on that.  And IMO the changes made HURT the game more than help the game.   I can't think of many board game apps that couldn't get the actual board game mechanics correct in the app, let alone intentionally change the rules of the game for <reasons>. 

 

Is that app good otherwise? Yes! (minus the bugs and slow speed of new content)

 

Do you get almost everything the board game offers? Almost, Yes!  

 

So please, don't let me seem like i'm poo-pooing on the game.  I paid for the full season.   I just want it to be the best it can be.  

 

What is also frustrating is this idea that multiplayer is a leading reason for this.  The whole reason I want the app is because I'd rather play solo more frequently without the hassle of setting the game up in real life.  I think a lot of these decisions were to plan around multiplayer... and i just don't think Multiplayer will be any fun if everyone is just farming the best items, getting multiple copies of stuff they shouldn't have, and have no restriction... which is another reason why I think the box/culling system is better.  It's more fun to work with what you have, then to get all the best stuff.  At least, there should be a mode that respects this.  

Edited May 27, 2016 by wakasm

[Velusion]

I would have preferred they keep the original culling mechanic from the physical game. It seems like they over-complicated things by allowing the same character to exist in different games.

 

That said it's not the end of the world. They got so much else of the adaptation spot on for me to be really upset.

[da_mayor]

The only problem with the base mechanic is that they wanted you to have the ability to mix and match characters from multiple different playthrough-parties in any given scenario.  So keeping the "removed from game" list is impossible, since two different characters from two different games with two different removal lists can play together.

[wakasm]

The only problem with the base mechanic is that they wanted you to have the ability to mix and match characters from multiple different playthrough-parties in any given scenario.  So keeping the "removed from game" list is impossible, since two different characters from two different games with two different removal lists can play together.

 

They as in Obsidian, not They as in Paizo.  

 

Obsidian should have left that mechanic out if it was going to alter the base game.  Or even better, do it like the physical card game does... and track the box to the campaign.  If you bring over a character, and they have cards they shouldn't have (say, from a future adventure pack), or cards that are unique, then you replace those cards with whatever is left in the box, because you literally don't even have extra copies of it.  

 

IMO, it's something the digital version should do BETTER than the physical card game, because it could bring up a list of what cards are available, what are used, what's been culled, it could even record a history/log of it all.  AND they could restore characters back to their original state as well.  

 

It's a great design decision for other modes... but only when you have an alternate mode that respects the core game as is.  That is what story should be.

Edited May 28, 2016 by wakasm

[altonu]

It seems to me, that an additional mode or save slot could be added to accommodate an instance of box simulation.

Right now, there exists Story and quest Mode.  Simply add a new Story: P&P Simulation mode.

 

This new mode would keep track on one instance of the box and all characters and what was equipped to them.

Each card would keep track of it was in the box, attached to a character, or banished.

 

Before each mission, you would go to the tavern and select the characters to participate in each mission, and exchange items before venturing forth.  Any character not participating in a mission would just wait at the tavern and could be selected for future missions later.  There would be no multiple versions of each character in the box, just their current status and inventory.

 

The limitation would be that you could only simulate one box/world at a time, but as long as you allow for a reset the box option, I think it could be a reasonable compromise.  Maybe this would be harder to implement than it sounds to me?

[Hannibal_PJV]

Possible yes, but it would mean one new game mode with its own rules and own programming Path.

In English it means that it can be done, but it would eat a lot of time, that dev team at this moment is using bug hunting, making new content and making this game available in new platforms like PC, making multiplayer and so on.

So it would definitely have downsides. But would the delay be one month, two month, three month to all that content I can not say.

 

But maybe we will see extra content for 30$ where you can buy that Virtual Gaming box simulator. But I can not see this likely scenario, because when this would be ready (after whole Runelords saa has been made) most people have been going to play something else.

But it is not impossible. Not sure though how Many people would be willing to pay extra to get this feature. Some would, definitely,muut not all.

[Irgy]

 

We do have sliding variable scale for doing this to mimic the effect of PACG. This culling method fits roughly between the standard PACG method (player chooses boons culled) and Organized Play method (auto-cull everything). We took a lot of care in this design decision heavily consulting with Paizo and Mike Selinker. If anything, they recommended going further away from the standard PACG method. We felt that maintaining the gradual draw-down of Basics and Elites was important to maintain and was something we could mimic in software quite easily.

 

Having this in the OP would have saved a few folks some time and nerves worrying about whether the % of culled cards will increase as the adventure path goes on. Although Obsidian hasn't stated the percentages, there will be progression and there will be scaling for party size.

 

Ah, great to hear, and I guess I can at least say I was right the first time when just I assumed they'd do it this way.

 

My point was not to say you do not know math.  Please read the context over.  

 

IMO, the biggest issue is that the Obsidian decided at some point to do more than what the board game offers, which one paper, is great!   But in doing so, breaks the board game experience, which is all I wanted out of the app.   It can not be any more simple than that.

 

 I own all 3 real life board games, i own the minis for the game, i basically am the "whale" these companies dream of when it comes to foolishly parting with money from my wallet for a hobby, and I expected to be able to play all 3 games in the app eventually.  That's all I ever wanted out of it.   And based on their decisions... I'll never get that wish. 

 

How there is not a mode that simply mirrors the board game exactly is beyond me, except that they decided other things were more important.  

 

If they wanted to do more, they should have left all the extras - treasure chests, auto-culling, multiplayer, to quest mode or some other mode designed for replayability/farming/flexibility.  But there should be a mode that mimics the card game rules exactly, One Box, and they failed on that.  And IMO the changes made HURT the game more than help the game.   I can't think of many board game apps that couldn't get the actual board game mechanics correct in the app, let alone intentionally change the rules of the game for <reasons>. 

 

Is that app good otherwise? Yes! (minus the bugs and slow speed of new content)

 

Do you get almost everything the board game offers? Almost, Yes!  

 

So please, don't let me seem like i'm poo-pooing on the game.  I paid for the full season.   I just want it to be the best it can be.  

 

What is also frustrating is this idea that multiplayer is a leading reason for this.  The whole reason I want the app is because I'd rather play solo more frequently without the hassle of setting the game up in real life.  I think a lot of these decisions were to plan around multiplayer... and i just don't think Multiplayer will be any fun if everyone is just farming the best items, getting multiple copies of stuff they shouldn't have, and have no restriction... which is another reason why I think the box/culling system is better.  It's more fun to work with what you have, then to get all the best stuff.  At least, there should be a mode that respects this.  

 

Sounds like we agree more than we disagree then. I have the same sentiments just maybe not so strongly held.

 

It's worth being clear though that just mirroring the board game wouldn't work (even without having added a suite of party management options to the picture). The reality is you can abuse the system in paper as well, but no-one bothers because it's a waste of time. Why replay an earlier mission to banish cards when you can play the next mission and actually get somewhere instead? However as an app, things change. Shuffling time becomes zero, people are playing on their own, and people's whole attitude towards the game is different. All this changes it from "could be abused but who cares" to "I feel like a chump for not abusing it".

 

I think if you wanted to have this you'd need to have some sort of lock-in mode that:

* Locks you down to one set of characters, or at least has some complicated constraints on changing them.

* Only lets you play each scenario once (unless you fail, see the next point)

* Punishes you in some way if you fail (e.g. you can't play again for 15 minutes), to stop forfeit-restarts on even the current scenario

 

With all those things emulating normal paper play maybe it could work. They're all things I tend to do anyway, but I can see why Obsidian might think it wasn't worthwhile adding this option, and either way why they felt they needed an alternative.

[Tobold]

Complaint: "One of the most annoying things about the physical game was tracking the permanently banished cards. This would be so easy to do in a video game! Why doesn't Obsidian just do that?!"

 

Response: Because it's actually not easy and is in fact borderline impossible. If party X merges with party Y, what do you put in the box? When multiplayer is implemented and 6 different people play together for the first time, what do you put in the box? The app would have to track a copy of the box for every single story mode character, which is prohibitively taxing. Generating a box dynamically for each scenario circumvents this issue.

 

I respectfully disagree for the single-player part. Cards aren't tracked "by character" but by party. There is no such thing as "merging parties"; instead you have the choice of either continuing to play with the same "party" and switch out characters, or to use the Story button on the main screen to start a completely new party from scratch with no memory of the cards the previous party had. So at least for single-player, the culling system as written in the rules is totally possible.

Edited May 30, 2016 by Tobold

[Borissimo]

I've seen the argument before that there's "no such thing as merging parties," and unless I'm missing something (which is possible!), it just seems factually untrue. If I make a save file in which I play Kyra solo and a save file in which I play Merisiel solo, the game DOES allow me to combine those two characters into one group at any time I wish. If I put Kyra into Merisiel's party, then we use Merisiel's box; if I put Merisiel into Kyra's party, then we use Kyra's box. So yes, the game does have to track an instance of the box for every character!

[Tobold]

I've seen the argument before that there's "no such thing as merging parties," and unless I'm missing something (which is possible!), it just seems factually untrue. If I make a save file in which I play Kyra solo and a save file in which I play Merisiel solo, the game DOES allow me to combine those two characters into one group at any time I wish. If I put Kyra into Merisiel's party, then we use Merisiel's box; if I put Merisiel into Kyra's party, then we use Kyra's box. So yes, the game does have to track an instance of the box for every character!

 

No, it has a box for every PARTY. Or said even simpler, it has exactly as many save games as you have different parties started. The party you select after hitting the story mode button determines the box of cards you have. What characters you then remove or add from that party doesn't matter at all.

[wakasm]

 

I've seen the argument before that there's "no such thing as merging parties," and unless I'm missing something (which is possible!), it just seems factually untrue. If I make a save file in which I play Kyra solo and a save file in which I play Merisiel solo, the game DOES allow me to combine those two characters into one group at any time I wish. If I put Kyra into Merisiel's party, then we use Merisiel's box; if I put Merisiel into Kyra's party, then we use Kyra's box. So yes, the game does have to track an instance of the box for every character!

 

No, it has a box for every PARTY. Or said even simpler, it has exactly as many save games as you have different parties started. The party you select after hitting the story mode button determines the box of cards you have. What characters you then remove or add from that party doesn't matter at all.

 

 

I believe this is true.  edited my post because I thought something else was being said.  

Edited May 31, 2016 by wakasm