Thread for discussing mechanics

Discussion in 'Yomi: Fighting Card Game' started by Lofobal, May 30, 2012.

  1. the-cap

    the-cap Well-Known Member

    I don't like the idea of a "universal" handcap. Perhaps if it was character dependent. Not that it really matters, but it makes Gary's innate worse than it already is. I like in yomi that blocks are much better than dodges early but as the game progresses that flips. The interesting part is weighing when to switch. With a max hand size, suddenly dodging is a reasonable option all of the time. I like the slowly escalating feel of the game as people get better cards. Holding on to pairs hoping for trips becomes a waste of hand space, making less supers happen.
    dzebra likes this.
  2. deluks917

    deluks917 Yomi League 1 Champion

    Yes sometimes it is better to not throw but mostly throwing for kd is fine. Obviously like throwing into 6J can be bad. But even something like throw into Ace is usually fine imo.
  3. Aphotix

    Aphotix Super Moderator Staff Member

    Wrongness aside, risking a tiny player base for a potentially larger one is a reasonable choice. (I'd like to point out that it isn't even the case, but whatever)
  4. Scarbo

    Scarbo Well-Known Member

    There are many situations where having an extra card in hand by blocking yourself is preferable to free damage.
  5. Inkstud

    Inkstud Patreon Supporter

    If we wanted a change that increased the pace of the game and led to less everybody-blocks turns but had minimal effects on character balance, one thing we could do is increase the starting hand size.
    Jiggernaut likes this.
  6. Aphotix

    Aphotix Super Moderator Staff Member

    We've batted that idea around for a while. The problem is the inelegance of it offline. New players will see people holding 15 cards in their hand (which already happens in some MUs), and go "no thanks".
  7. Aphotix

    Aphotix Super Moderator Staff Member

    The only trick taking game I play with any regularity has a hand size of exactly 3 cards for the entire game. Who are these mythical people under the age of 18 who give a fuck about the games you're talking about?
  8. Sirlin

    Sirlin Steward of the Realm Staff Member

    Yeah huge starting hand size is a real turn off, so no. It's already enough that you start with 7 and can get to 10 so quickly in Yomi. If starting size were 10, that's not even that many more cards (I think the normal draw rule gives a better number) and yet you'd start the game with just too much in hand. That's why a better solution is something that slowly gives more cards over time. We actually tried a whole lot of ideas though and I think we already found that better solution.
  9. eugeybear

    eugeybear Member

    I think that the emphasis here is on the word "try"
    Sirlin isn't saying that this is final. He's not saying that there aren't problems. He's saying that here's an idea that he feels has potential, and he would like people to actually TRY it rather than just criticizing its shortcomings. It's possible that things won't change as much as we expect. And of course there's also the possibility that the drawbacks with the idea will be far worse than we expect. But theorizing will only get us so far without actually trying it out. Hats off to Kawainess since it sounds like he/she has been taking the time to try it out.
    Edit: Furthermore, even if we find out that something is broken with the idea, having playtested it rather than just criticizing it will probably be more beneficial for giving us ideas about how to fix/tweak it so that it does work

    Now, I wasn't really around for the development of Yomi, so I don't really know much about Sirlin's personality. However, I'd like to think that if this is tried out and there still seem to be some drastic unfixable problems, then Sirlin won't be so stubborn as to force a rule like this into the new edition anyway. (Maybe I'm wrong on this?)

    I'm a math teacher, and when we were doing a unit on probability I sadly found out that many of my students didn't know how many hearts there were in a standard deck of cards. So unfortunately, I'm guessing that many of them also haven't played many trick-taking games.
    Lofobal likes this.
  10. Sirlin

    Sirlin Steward of the Realm Staff Member

    Quality of the game matters more than anything, as I keep telling you guys. And I think Flash Duel, Puzzle Strike, and Yomi all ended up good. So apparently I did ok. Not just me, but all of us. We are really handicapped nowadays though, because we've lost something that made it much easier to develop these games: a forum community that worked together to solve things. Now it's just endless arguments questioning premisses and trying to make things look bad and so on.

    eugeybear, you should all be trying this stuff, and not with the attitude of "I will prove it sucks!!!" Instead look for the best parts of it. You are trying to find the fun. And when you encounter a problem, #1 thing is figuring out how to beat it with whatever tools you have in-game. #2 thing is a constructive suggestion to solve it. Actually even "I tried to think of how to solve this, but I don't know" or "here is a BAD suggestion" is fine. Because a bad suggestion, that you know and label as bad, could be a clue for someone else to realize how to turn that into a better suggestion. See how positive that sounds? Yet our modern day forums are nothing like that. (Note: private development I did on puzzle strike toward the end was absolutely like that, and was great.)
    Wobberjacky and Atma like this.
  11. eugeybear

    eugeybear Member

    Hmm... I thought that's what I was trying to say. I guess I'll try to be clearer next time.
  12. Scarbo

    Scarbo Well-Known Member

    I like this version of normal draws. It makes rushdown viable in a way that it really isn't in current Yomi, allows more cards to be viable options, and makes the game more fun in general. But I think it absolutely requires a big rebalance of the game.
  13. Sirlin

    Sirlin Steward of the Realm Staff Member

    eugeybear, I was just kind of reiterating, not disagreeing with you.
  14. deluks917

    deluks917 Yomi League 1 Champion

    The current community is very hostile to this. The reason in my opinion is this idea did not come from the current community. It was not even discussed with most of the active players (originally it was somewhat secret). Alot of people here would like to see a better yomi. From the perspective of people who play this is a way to solve a semi-problem (block early being too good) and a non-problem (tournaments too long). If we are making rule changes why this one? If you want positive energy there should be some focus on everybodies ideas including active decent players.Maybe people are getting the wrong idea but people who currently play are not feeling like we are being listened to at all. I am not trying to make this worse by posting this but this is how alot of people feel.

    One real problem in yomi is that early game block is the best. Throw into kd is not really a great reward in many mu's. Instead of powering up normals why not power up throw. Making attack better is going to make block/dodge better as well and throw much worse. I am not sure how this solves anything. With cantrip normal I have even less of a reason to not block early game.

    One thing people are taling about now is giving some sort of a buff to throw. Some suggestions include:

    throw no follow up gives +4 dmg (maybe +3 - i support that, I think this is from Kawaii)
    throw no follow up gives +1 card
    maybe somehow make kd stronger

    to alot of people this seems like a better direction. Do you at least support people testing these sorts of ideas?

    edit: somehow went 2-2 with kawaii's val but I blame this on his unfamiliarity with new format (he did not block like at all). I will test this mu more tomorrow.
  15. Sirlin

    Sirlin Steward of the Realm Staff Member

    It's not about who isn't or isn't listened to. It's not about whose idea it was. The only thing that matters is if it's a better game or not. When making statements about whether it's a better game or not, it wouldn't matter who thought of it or who was listened to or whatever. Only the idea itself would matter.

    As has been said many times though, more interaction of attacks just seems better. It opens up more speeds being used and, well, interacting with each other. And more choices of strat with a few more cards. Also shorter games is better for sure, I mean if someone is disagreeing they are just not taking events into account in a realistic way. Or casting of matches. Another point is that it's nice to not have to use up even more ability slots on expansion characters for card draw stuff. There are already are such abilities, but without normal draw I think there would have to be even more of them.

    Adding one rule like normal draw that isn't on the cards themselves is already pushing it. Modifying damage with +4 sounds like drifting too far into inelegant land though. +1 card on throw no followup is sort of weird, probably has ok gameplay effect. KD stronger is dangerous territory because it's intentional that different characters have much different access to KD. But everyone has normal attacks they can use for cards, and normal attacks are kind of weak otherwise.
  16. tipzntrix

    tipzntrix Well-Known Member

    Eh, how about a real simple rule like "If you win combat, at the beginning of the powerup phase, draw an extra card." Remove the drawn card that successfully blocking awards you during the combat phase.

    Winning is defined as
    • attacking a throw or slower attack
    • throwing a block, dodge, or a slower throw
    • blocking an attack or a Joker
    • dodging an attack or a Joker
    • Jokering an attack or a throw (or another Joker)
    Really straightforward, accelerates the game, makes you think about what option will help you win, and I bet new players to the game will gloss over this rule like it was meant to be there, because there's already a huge RPS diagram drawn out as to what beats what.
    As to normal attacks, in fighting games we can mix people up whether they are knocked down or not with high-low and crossups. Mixup normals could happen not only on KD, but for the entire game. KD would need to be looked at again though.

    EDIT: As to hand sizes: Pretty much every game I have played online has had one of the two characters be beyond 10 cards for at least 10% of the turns in the game. Of course, hand efficiency for each character varies, so 10 cards means a lot more to same characters than it does for others, though I know this is a reiteration of a point brought up already.
  17. perinigricon

    perinigricon Member

    If you want the +1 card on throw no followup, change the rule to "If you show a normal attack or knock down your opponent, draw a card." That would probably be too powerful, as you could dodge into throw, but it's at least a shot in the dark.

    And in terms of tipz's idea, you need to give blocking an attack a card, as it's printed on the cards themselves and would require a reprint of the entire set for a minor change.
  18. Sirlin

    Sirlin Steward of the Realm Staff Member

    tipzntrix: that was sort of tried and did the opposite of what's desired. If you draw for winning combat...well which kind of attacks are good at that? The fastest ones, like dragon punches. So it makes normals *even worse* than they already are.

    Extra card on knockdown is very dangerous, and possibly unworkable. Different characters intentionally have different access to KD, so making a gamewide rule about card draw tied to it is going to cause problems I think. Also there is weirdness like Rook's throws always drawing but not saying they do on them, and Lum's throws never drawing. So yeah this was considered for a bit, but there are the issues.
  19. tipzntrix

    tipzntrix Well-Known Member

    I can see that. You did mention accelerating the game and making blocks vs block less common. I would have figured dragon punching wasn't an issue if it was just to avoid block vs block.

    If the one change above all else is to get normals to look more effective, I would look into mixups happening all the time.

    • Maybe normals shouldn't be so slow, or maybe specials shouldn't be so fast. This would affect every single card in the game though.
    • All normals chip (though Jaina's chip for more) a la Mortal Kombat
    • You can only search for Aces if you start your combo with a normal
    • Normals always mixup
  20. Arghy

    Arghy Active Member

    I like the idea of normals drawing, although I haven't tested it yet. I'd imagine people trying to jab me would let me play Midori's face cards more often, which is great fun.

    That said, a very simple way of further buffing normals and nerfing blocks is making throws deal more damage by either increasing the raw damage or lowering their combo point cost. I personally prefer the former, because it's less of a headache. A big enough boost would make throwing into KD more appealing and make throw combos a threat that you absolutely have to react with a proper poking and zoning game.

    This is obviously a non-starter as far as the current edition of the game is concerned, but something I'd like to see once Yomi 2nd Edition comes out in 2050.
    Inkstud likes this.
  21. Morn

    Morn Well-Known Member

    I have played with the beta rules allowing normal draw, and with Jaina ended up attacking every single turn of the game except for one. My opponent was also Jaina, and he attacked every single turn with her but one also. It was a very quick game, and it was fun to play, so mission accomplished there. But it wasn't anything strategic. "Attack or Q, depending on what my hand looks like, buyback. Switch with UP if in hand." That game may have been an anomaly, I'll admit, but I really didn't feel the need to make any other move. "Oh, I got outattacked? Facedown with 10 or Joker if in hand." It's that kind of mindless play that worries me. I think there's a workable idea with having normals draw, but maybe the timing needs to be moved to prevent degenerate topdecking. It's just a thought, but one that would fix several of the problems.

    As far as rules text goes, something like this as a universal rule: "During the powerup phase, if you played a normal attack as your combat card this turn, draw a card." It still gives a card and still encourages use of normals for the free draw, but prevents some of the things that can come up with the normal drawing immediately after play. Certain characters are still helped by it, but not as much and it doesn't cause problems like DeGrey flipping his 7 for free.
  22. Sirlin

    Sirlin Steward of the Realm Staff Member

    The topdecking thing is kind of a cool bonus where you don't exactly know if you'll be able to do a certain combo when you initiate it. I think people will like that and it's the opposite of a problem.

    Also it's very, very different to say that you played in a mindless way with no strategy and to say that that's actually optimal play. So I don't know which you're saying there. If it's the first, then it says nothing? If it's the second, it's a strong claim that asserts you know it was best to play that way. In my experience, Jaina is baited to buyback those normals a lot more with the normal draw rule, but the life loss adds up.
  23. perinigricon

    perinigricon Member

    The "topdecking thing" is the one part that I don't like in the draw rules during matches I've played... I've had it when they draw into a combo, and you can't really read them after they flip up their combat card. It adds too much randomness to the game.
  24. major_shiznick

    major_shiznick Well-Known Member

    In the few games I've played, this wasn't too big an issue. The worst I saw was Jaina topdecking a 7* for the win, which really won't be happening often (though I agree that Jaina would appear to be a huge issue).

    The other big matchup issue that jumps out at me is that Arg's matchups via the grapplers probably reverses in Arg's favor, but this can plausibly be controlled by a damage boost across the board to grapplers. I mean, that's how grapplers are supposed to be, anyway. They're not controlly, option restrictors; they're "work to get in close and drop hammers". As they are now, Mid and Rook are kind of bizarro footsies-grapplers, imo (Mid more so).

    I think a lot of the bellyaching about cantrip leading normals is the inevitable players being stuck in the current rules and not having yet had time to adapt to the new early gameplay that it creates. For me, the #1 thing it does is make an opening hand full of normals a viable hand, rather than trash. Didn't draw any blocks? Okay, poke a bit without giving away too much hand information. Better normals encourage both fast attacks and blocks, which in turn encourage blocks and throws, respectively. The RPS triangle remains intact, simply swirled about a bit.
    Lofobal likes this.
  25. Mad King

    Mad King Well-Known Member

    The normal draw rule I think makes Argagarg very very good, probably top tier. In the base set, he probably has one matchup which is still notably a disadvantage with Normal Draw.

    Grave Matchup: Swings from slight to decisive Argagarg favor. Now in addition to the advantages Argagarg already had, his throw disadvantage is lowered a fair amount since he can profitably poke out Grave's throws, and he now gains a very powerful advantage since his normals are faster.

    Jaina Matchup: Swings from slight Argagarg favor to almost hopeless for Jaina. Jaina gains a lot from Normal Draw, but again, Argagarg is going to outspeed her on normals and her throw advantage means less. She literally has to guess to even escape the early game without losing half of her life, and now Argagarg can keep it sustained through the middlegame.

    Rook Matchup: Normal Draw probably swings this to barely Rook favor or even. Before, Argagarg couldn't really keep poking Rook out of his throws for any extended period of time, because eventually he'd run out of ammo around the time Rook got access to Rock Armor. Now Rook has to rely a lot more on his blocks, J, AA, and Rock Armor. He still has the tools, so Rook possibly still wins, but it's a lot closer.

    Midori Matchup: Now straight even. Midori can't keep throwloop active for any length of time anymore, and unlike Rook does not have access to Rock Armor and has to either use AA or Q to power through Argagarg's poking game. Midori still has great damage in Dragon Form but this matchup swings a lot.

    Valerie Matchup: One of very few matches to change from Argagarg's favor. Valerie is now even or slightly favored because she simply gets more payoff from normal draw and her Ace game is sufficiently nasty to force Argagarg into blocking or dodging, which opens up Valerie's throw/dodge/attack into massive damage gameplan.

    Setsuki Matchup: Setsuki is probably the best (only?) Argagarg counterpick because she naturally outspeeds his normals and still gets her vortex-mixup on him, except now she can draw more damage/combo fodder from outspeeding him.

    Lum Matchup: Unchanged, still Argagarg's favor by a fair margin.

    Geiger Matchup: Goes from even to decisive Argagarg favor. Fast Time Spirals now unfavorably trade with Argagarg 2 (4 life and card parity versus 8 life and -1 card) and Geiger doesn't have any speed advantages outside of aces and kings. Geiger can't even use Normal Draw to escape his disadvantaged early game because Argagarg is likely to outspeed him and accelerate the game clock.

    DeGrey Matchup: Stays even. Normal Draw actually buffs DeGrey A a lot in this matchup; now DeGrey has not only the throw advantage which he can now easily pitch for (by simply revealing 7 attack and then flipping to throw as needed), but his Ace becomes stronger because Argagarg's pokes become more important. In exchange, DeGrey loses speed wars on normals and can't take great advantage of Normal Draw to actually fix his hands due to him only having one (very slow) straight.
  26. perinigricon

    perinigricon Member

    I'm wondering why the cantrip is immediate and not at end of combat, where you would still get the benefits of it without slowing the game down by making people rethink their combo.

    Normally, before you play your combat card, you know what your combo is going to be and thus combat itself is quick. This would require you to think beforehand (calculate damage and such) and then think afterwards as well, which is counter-intuitive to one of the main goals of the rule (speeding up the game).
  27. Sirlin

    Sirlin Steward of the Realm Staff Member

    All things being equal, you always want something to be immediate, mostly for memory reasons but also so it's just fast feedback. So by default, it should be draw a card right away. Next, as said already, I think it's a plus that there is a slight bit of uncertainty in combos (as there is in a real fighting game), and it's not a minus. I understand you think it's a minus, and some percentage of people think that and some other percentage of people will think it's a positive. Been around the block on that quite a bit and overall I think that's a plus. It's exciting when you gamble for that extra bit of a combo and get it.

    I think the slowing the game part down is negligible, like basically zero, compared to the benefits.
  28. Inkstud

    Inkstud Patreon Supporter

    What about if playing a normal in combat doesn't draw you a card, but instead you return the normal to your hand at the end of combat? (But only the first normal you revealed in combat, not like follow ups in a combo or something.)

    To me this just has more of a clean feel with a better aesthetic. People don't have to be concerned about topdecking and reevaluating their combo, etc (though I see Sirlin doesn't think that matters), people get the benefit of retaining larger hands (can power up for aces easier, have more combo tools when they hit, so speeds up the game) and to me at least, this feels a lot more consistent with the concept of poking in a fighting game (you don't get some random bonus for poking unless you hit in the form of a free card, you are just doing a move that is low risk because you get it back and it doesn't matter that much if they block it).

    Maybe it "feels" better if you don't return a normal if it is outsped or dodged. Probably this idea works better in play when you do return it regardless though, because that goes a longer way toward making normals better relative to all those dragon punches and fireballs and stuff.

    I also like that this is one of those ways people would reveal information about their hand. I really like that about the blocks, making guesses on what's in a players' hand based on what they block with, like if they block with Jaina's 7 or something.

    Possible problems: Steps on Jaina's innate a bit, probably not as strong as "draw a card" since drawing an Ace or Dragon Punch = better than a 5 or whatever.
  29. perinigricon

    perinigricon Member

    Actually, returning a normal unless it's outsped would make for an interesting game... it would still give normals a benefit while providing a counter for the card draw in rare cases. Inkstud's idea with normals returning instead of cantrip-ing would probably reduce the power of drawing normals as well, as you know you'll only get back the x speed normal instead of possibly an A or !.
  30. deluks917

    deluks917 Yomi League 1 Champion

    Wobber we should play midori/val or midori grave some time. I think I can win maybe 6/8 (idk if I want to play more then say 8) in either mu.
  31. Sirlin

    Sirlin Steward of the Realm Staff Member

    Yeah this stuff has been tried/discussed a long time ago. Returning the same card over and over is just too dangerous unless it's really controlled like on Vendetta or something. I really think you want to avoid that as a gamewide mechanic, hence drawing a card from normal (which gives the the BONUS FEATURE that it can help your combo, which is somehow falsely advertised as a bad thing here).

    Returning unless it's outsped was talked about too, and is less simple than the current rule. Seems kind of good that you have more incentive to normal (than if outsped rule existed), which results in a few more normals happening, which results in being able to hit people out of their normals more. I guess I could see the point if it's like normal vs normal: the game, but if you guys are playing that way I think it's kind of not playing well(?).
  32. tipzntrix

    tipzntrix Well-Known Member

    I thought about this, but I had the idea that normals should only return if blocked, and nothing else. That really becomes a straight metaphor to safe block strings where both players come out even in frames at the end. If you hit, then you use up your normal as a combo.

    In the end though, this normal draw rule probably has a few months more testing ground on it so far, but I just feel like guaranteed cards beyond the first one per turn ruins a lot of hand control mechanics that used to be played with like Throwlooping. It would be nice if there was an option to shut down the normal draw, just like how you can shut down block. That's what I feel is missing, otherwise you can cycle normals out of your hand for new cards at the cost of some damage (potentially minimal in some cases) or maybe giving your opponent some cards. If they hit, well even better.
  33. Sirlin

    Sirlin Steward of the Realm Staff Member

    I asked a lot of people the question if they knew they would get hit out of a normal, would they still do it for the card draw. And everyone said no. So I think "getting hit out of your normal and taking damage" is the counter right now.
  34. brainof7

    brainof7 Member

    The only thing that seems weird to me, is if normals are better, why don't I just block more? its like:

    The rock game is too good. As a result, we are buffing scissors, in the hopes that this will stop the dominant rock gameplan.

    I guess it does incentivize people to get off the block/throw early game, and try to sneak in normal attacks to catch throws, but the more I think about it, the less this seems like a real change.

    Also, is the hand cap rule in the expansion notes anywhere? Or is that just the next thing that might happen?
  35. Sirlin

    Sirlin Steward of the Realm Staff Member

    How is it not a real change? It...really changes things. You can potentially build a hand with poking instead of not being able to do that. That is "real change." Also in your example, the blocking person is gaining less of an advantage than before, so it's not as risky to be the normal attacking person. It also means that a fast attack makes more sense to do because there some actual chance it would hit a slow attack, whereas before this was far less relevant.

    The hand cap rule is just something with lots of evidence that it should exist. The rule is that at the end of the turn (after powerup phase), discard down to 10.
  36. deluks917

    deluks917 Yomi League 1 Champion

    I just easily beat brainof7 in arg/rook 3-1. I feel like he can chip rook from like 40 ish life lol. Also beat choke 1-0 as arg against rook. I never sucessfully threw him the whole game. All I did was attack/block. Me countering his special blocks to get chip actually felt ok to me.

    beat choke 1-0 in mid grave. 73 hp left.

    I am not saying normal draw is a bad idea if rebalance. But is anyone not having results where midori/rook are much much worse?

    So far my records are:
    vs mid
    Val 2-0 (I think Oni)
    Grave 1-0 (versus choke)

    vs Rook
    Grave 3-2 (5vVolc)
    Arg 3-1 (4vbrain, 1vchoke)

    I think I may have won another of these 3-1 but I don't remeber.

    Record with team grappler

    As Midori

    vs Val 2-2 (versus Kawaii)

    Other People:

    Choke troq 0-1 Volc Grave

    On time:
    Jely/Morn League game was 44 minutes 5 games
  37. brainof7

    brainof7 Member

    All I mean is that it doesn't skew the payoffs very hard between block/attack/throw that much, compared to how they were before. Block still beats attack pretty cleanly. It does make running normals into blocks less bad yeah, though it is still pretty bad.

    What exactly is the handcap rule supposed to do? I see many people arguing that big hands are a deterent to play, but some characters really depend on drawing lots of cards before they can do anything in certain MUs so maybe I am missing something?

    edit: ok, discard at end like MTG. So people can still keep their important cards and discard the cards they don't care about. I was thinking no draw if at 10 for some reason

    edit2: I played in and watched a bunch of games now. It makes a huge difference agaisnt grapplers, but IDK about other characters
  38. Claytus

    Claytus Well-Known Member

    WTF? I'm not even involved in yomi development at the moment, and I've known this was coming for 3 months. Maybe pay some attention if you care enough to rant about the feelings of the community as a whole, instead of assuming that the hundreds of discussions that must have occurred leading up to this don't count because you weren't personally invited.

    On topic: I am sad to not see a hand-limit announced as a change.

    Also, I think it's worth differentiating about how the "masses" feel. In my opinion, a new rulebook is usually celebrated and adored. It's new components that are so astoundingly reviled. Sirlin's games are in kind of a weird spot that the components tend to all have rules written on them. Unlike a more normal board game where you just have markers, and the creator is free to tell you the marker means something slightly different in an expansion, and everyone goes along with it. I don't really have a core point, I just think it's a valuable distinction?
  39. deluks917

    deluks917 Yomi League 1 Champion

    This is a lesser issue since troq is new but his innate does not work great with new rules. anyone have ideas on how to tweak it?
  40. Morn

    Morn Well-Known Member

    Okay, so, to the best of my understanding, the following principles are guiding changes. I just wish to summarize for us proles, so please correct any ignorance I display. These are things that need to be understood before we can move forward to a better Yomi.

    • Games are perceived as taking too long to play.
    • This is because turns are wasted on blocking that could be spent attacking or throwing.
    • The ability to build large hands is considered detrimental to gameplay.
    • The game needs both more fun and more strategy added to it.
    Are these correct? I'm not asking for complete understanding or anything, but I wouldn't mind a look into the mind of Sirlin so that I can better approach the topic at hand.
    Remy77077 likes this.
  41. friiik

    friiik Active Member

    So the time has come. Flash Duel done, Puzzle Strike done...and now it's time for Yomi - the Expansion!

    Sadly, I'm not very interested in helping developing and testing the game, so I won't participate in that. You know, just doesn't appeal fun to me.
    But I will still have opinions, and sometimes I will share them and sometimes not. This is one of those sharing times.

    I will put the expansion aside. I haven't played much expansion so I don't know them good enough, and I don't have much interest in playing and testing them. Not now at least.
    But I should say something about this idea for a fix to get shorter games of Yomi (mainly to make it more tournament viable, but it seems like it would also benefit in other ways like making the game more fun (what I gather from Sirlin)) - reveal normal in combat; draw a card.

    This potentially new rule (which people will hopefully test a lot) is certainly not appealing to me. "Why?" you might ask. It's simple, I love slow-paced games with lots of thinking. Many times, in this type of games you can certainly play fast, but I always found it was not as fun that way, and also I always didn't perform as well as when I would think a lot. For example, I have never really enjoyed playing blitz Go, while I ALWAYS enjoyed playing long games (and I would win a lot more often. 1 hour or more is standard).
    So this idea that you would want fast-paced game of Yomi goes strictly against the type of games I like in general. Bottom line is probably; I need time to make good evaluated decisions and it's fun to think a lot.
    Now, this change doesn't mean that I have a timer on me ticking as I'm playing. Rather, the purpose is to decrease the amount of combats in a game; making the game end faster. I don't think I would have a problem with this. Question is if this new rule does that, and how much it does that. Does it reduce combats by 50% or by 10%? The more the better is the assumption I suppose. Then the question will be: How can we make the game as well balanced as it is now (or better) with these new rules?
    I think the last sentence is particularly important, and equally tricky. I know the current game as it is very well. It cannot be understated how much impact this change will have on the meta-game and balance overall. The quest will be to make sure that it doesn't affect the game negatively. I wish you play-testers good luck with that. When you find a solution I will be happy to play and maybe beat you in the game of Yomi ;)


    That was the main post. I elaborate a bit more here on the draw card thing and other stuff.
    Having another option that draw cards irregardless if it hits, inevitably looks like it would make the game shorter. (does the average damage dealt per combat increase (resulting in fewer combats)? I would guess 'Yes')

    I certainly don't understand this "block/block is boring". Wait what? If you play block it was your choice. You could have (assuming you have throws) thrown. That's like saying a turtle is boring. Or a turtle match is boring. That is completely personal, and has nothing to do with the game as such. I mean, the players have other choices. Too bad for the people watching Aphotix' stream, but hey guess what: the players decide how and what to play. Now, if there are people blocking a lot and being successful, does it mean it's a fault in the design or that people simply haven't found a good (existing) counter? (counter would be throwing a lot. but maybe it's not good enough and that's some people's complaint?)
    I will tell you once and for all: it is not optimal to block. Get that out of your head folks. It is optimal to deal damage. If you are 100% sure your opponent is blocking and you have a throw, there are only a few cases where you shouldn't throw. Otherwise, you should always throw. Why many players don't throw is because they don't trust their reads, or apply risk management and deduce throwing too risky.

    And about throws. What happens with throws? The incentive to throw (not letting opponent increasing his hand size) is half-gone, making throws hit less blocks (assuming people normal attack more than now (which they should)). This arguably makes throws weaker, and I would guess they would be played less. You could probably gather data on this (occurrence of throws without and with can-trip rule). That would not definitely say throws are weaker/stronger, but would give a hint of the percieved meta-game. Anyway, I'm starting to ramble here, these questions will mostly be answered only through testing.

    Also, I think a hand-cap is bad. Mainly because it decreases fun. (Drawing cards is fun!) Please only use it as a last resort. Also, some strategies wouldn't work anymore (assuming 10 hand size), but that isn't very important.
  42. Lofobal

    Lofobal Well-Known Member

    Right, there's a definite selection bias that people who like the way a game currently plays will be the ones playing it.

    Absolutely disagree. Ideas should be evaluated on their merits. It would be unwise to try bad ideas for the sake of "fairness." A crucial part of good design is not getting emotionally invested in ideas, for example by attaching ego to them. It's important that we be able to harshly call out bad ideas without things being personal.

    I'll respond to this since it was in the same post. It seems messy and complicated. Imagine trying to explain this to a new player. It's so many extra effects. The current knockdown rules are already too messy.
    Aphotix likes this.
  43. Kawaiiness

    Kawaiiness Active Member

    Thank you. That is my personal opinion too. Blocking does not win games. I would always rather throw a block than block/block (unless I have no other throws and don't want to follow up). I actually don't know why it's perceived to be so strong in general, as I really only block 4/5 times with val in a game, and yet most people feel she needs to block early game to win. If you waste your turns not dealing damage when you have the cards to do so you will not win.
  44. Lofobal

    Lofobal Well-Known Member

    Not at all. Attack vs Attack and Throw vs Throw are more interesting because there are lots of variations of attacks and throws. In most matchups there is only one type of block. Yes I'm aware that block/block is uneven because some characters prefer longer games and etc. It's still a failing of the engine.

    Yeah they don't get good enough reads to make throwing worthwhile, and the structure of the game means this leads to lots of blocking. If this happens in tournament play, and I'm told it does, that is most assuredly a problem with the game, not the players.

    I don't think it decreases fun at all. First, to be clear, you still draw cards when you are at the cap, so you still have the fun part. Also it encourages you to play more cards (playing cards is fun) and can lead to some midgame dodges (diversity is fun). It also leads to interesting decisions when you sometimes hit the cap (decisions are fun). Additionally, drawing a card is more rewarding when you have a smaller hand, because it's a scarcer resource.
    garcia1000 and Aphotix like this.
  45. Lofobal

    Lofobal Well-Known Member

    This "blocking doesn't win games" stuff seems like saying "running fast doesn't win races, stepping over the finish line does." Uh, well ok, but we all know that you need to be a position to do that. And sure, throwing a block is better than blocking a block, but we can't always do that. If the EV says you should block a lot (which it seems to) we need to adjust the payoffs.
    Aphotix likes this.
  46. deluks917

    deluks917 Yomi League 1 Champion

    What does "alot" mean?
  47. Scarbo

    Scarbo Well-Known Member

  48. friiik

    friiik Active Member

    I can say I think 10 times in a row block/block is super exciting. You can't argue against that; it's personal, not a fact.

    This is really weird. The psychology of this game makes people block so we should make them not do that? Even if the block spam is not optimal, and very exploitable? Players not establishing reads lose the game.....this was really weird.

    Hm, I see, that is slightly different. Well, you can't have a big hand though! (*sad face*) That is fun too! It seems to me though there are several...strong issues on hand management. Powering up trips let alone four-of-a-kind seems like it would be rare too. If the hand cap was quite high (lets say 15 cards) it would be different. Maybe 10 is just a bit too low and that's all.
    I don't understand the up-side effect of it though. You say it encourages you to play more cards [of different types]. This is true, but people can still do that if they want to as it is. It seems to me there's a presumption that blocking is boring and thus you want players to block less. It does help making the game fast-paced overall, but it seems more of a fix against stalling than anything else (would you really want to do that?). A stalling type player will have hard time finding his niché (even if he plays Arg).
  49. Claytus

    Claytus Well-Known Member

    First off... why? The questions on the table are "is it fun?" and "is it balanced?". Understanding the guiding principles is kind of not important. If you don't understand it, fine... it's pretty complex. But don't go off track by saying that it needs to be completely spelled out before people can move forward.

    No, games do take too long to play. It's not a perception, it's a statement. Nobody really cares if you guys want to argue about it here, I think Sirlin made his decision a long time ago based on evidence he already collected.

    No, this is actually a completely seperate issue that has very little to do with the first issue. Games are boring to watch because optimal play often involves building up to lethal damage available in hand before it really matters how you spend that damage. It's really awful if noone wants to spectate a tournament game because only the second half is actually fun to watch.

    Yes, sort of. This is kind of tied up in the other two issues. Having to manage large hands is annoying and not all that fun, and slows down RL play. And players feeling that they are better served by having a huge hand with lots of options and potential "combo of doom!!!", whether it's true or not, serves to make players want to build large hands. If you just take away the option, both these problems kind of go away (which helps the earlier points, btw), and there doesn't really seem to be a big downside, so... why not do this?

    wat? Explain your use of the word "need". If you could add fun or strategy to a game, why would you ever not do it? This seems more like a fundamental truth, and not something that needs to be elaborated on as a bullet point...
    Lofobal likes this.
  50. Lofobal

    Lofobal Well-Known Member

    Sure, you can hold on to your inarguable position if you like. I think you shouldn't try to walk into a debate thread with it though. Meanwhile we're discussing things like depth (my last post) and the inability of the current system to draw spectators (Aphotix). You're going to need something more substantial than "yeah well I like this way" if you expect the design to cater to you.

Share This Page