Quest Mode: Guide to Formats, Worlds, and everything

[serrasmurf]

Ok, let's focus the discussion to immediate needs, then. What features are needed for the Ravnica World? Should that particular world be restricted to in-block decks (plus reprints)?

Hi MYk,
Thnx, here is what i would like for the world:
- I have restricted all AI decks to cards from both Ravnica blocks. For a challenging experience you should also be restricted to play with ravnica cards (optional config in Forge, reprints allowed)
- I included all preconstructed decks from wizards for the easy level. Some of the precon decks use M13 cards. M13 is not part of the ravnica world. I don't mind however that the original precon list are kept intact and that the AI uses some M13 cards. But I could also replace these cards if it will be a problem with restrictions
- I agree that the spell shop should only offer prizes from this world. I think this works fine in Forge at the moment, i think unlocking sets within a world is a bit too much. Only current issue i noticed is that you can buy precon decks from outside the world
- i like the current flow from easy to hard
- i tested my decks without pets. i always play fanatasy quest but never use the pets. maybe pets should not be allowed in ravnica (or do we have cats and dogs? it's a city world ) but let's playtest a bit more first
- i agree that we could do more with the bazaar. i would like the option to play best of 5
- Cards! some important/fun cards are not yet in Forge: Sunforger, Aurelia's Fury, Protean Hulk, Simic Guildmage, Simic Manipulator, Djinn Illuminatus
KR

[myk]

- I have restricted all AI decks to cards from both Ravnica blocks. For a challenging experience you should also be restricted to play with ravnica cards (optional config in Forge, reprints allowed)

For this, we could modify res/quest/world/worlds.txt:
- Rename the current "Sets" to "RewardSets". It's use would not change from current. I.e. it would restrict which rewards are offered at match win and which packs are available in the spell shop; and it would not restrict which precons are available in the spell shop.
- Add a new field: "AllowedSets". This would restrict which cards are available to use in decks. It would be used by the deck editor for world filters and would restrict which precons are available in the spell shop. Every card in the deck would have to be from an allowed set (plus reprints) to be considered for sale. Existing worlds would get an empty AllowedSets value, indicating that all sets are allowed.
- Separate out "BannedCards" into a separate field so there's no confusion about which *Sets field is should be attached to.
- Add preference for whether AllowedSets are respected or whether all sets are always allowed

- I included all preconstructed decks from wizards for the easy level. Some of the precon decks use M13 cards. M13 is not part of the ravnica world. I don't mind however that the original precon list are kept intact and that the AI uses some M13 cards. But I could also replace these cards if it will be a problem with restrictions

I'm open to suggestion on this, but it seems to me that we should strictly respect the AllowedSets list and the M13 cards should be replaced; it would be very difficult to special-case allow the precon decks since once they are purchased, they can be edited like any other deck. Of course, we could also add M13 to the AllowedSets and just not add it to the RewardSets.

- I agree that the spell shop should only offer prizes from this world. I think this works fine in Forge at the moment, i think unlocking sets within a world is a bit too much. Only current issue i noticed is that you can buy precon decks from outside the world

- UI change to Quest Decks page: Decks allowed in this world tab and All decks tab
- Ensure deck is valid for this world before allowing a match to start
- Remove "Unlock Sets" feature? For all worlds, or just worlds with non-null AllowedSets?

- i like the current flow from easy to hard

meaning what, exactly?

- i tested my decks without pets. i always play fanatasy quest but never use the pets. maybe pets should not be allowed in ravnica (or do we have cats and dogs? it's a city world ) but let's playtest a bit more first

My first thought here is that pet use is a player choice, and whereas restricting cards to a list of sets is difficult for a user to manage manually, choosing (or not choosing) a pet is simple, and provides a gentle "difficulty" knob for players to tweak. Unless others have a strong feeling otherwise, I'd like to keep pets.

- i agree that we could do more with the bazaar. i would like the option to play best of 5
- Cards! some important/fun cards are not yet in Forge: Sunforger, Aurelia's Fury, Protean Hulk, Simic Guildmage, Simic Manipulator, Djinn Illuminatus
KR

Probably can be added after initial Ravnica world release, though I know a lot of people are clamoring for those cards : ).

[RumbleBBU]

When I started making my own modifications to the Quest mode, my guiding principle was "don't fix it if it ain't broken". Many players enjoyed the Quest mode as such, and there was no need to 'ruin' it for them just because I wanted it to behave a little differently.

So basically everything I did was fully optional. You don't want to limit your cardbase or use any of the new worlds? Fine, that's fully supported. You can still play your Quest games exactly like you did before I got my hands on the Quest mode. But the new features are there for players who want to use them. They are an optional part of the game.

This is what I believe Sol, too, is trying to communicate, and when the proposed changes are as extensive as what you've listed, I feel that the best way to implement them could be a third Quest mode (call it "Epic mode", "Deep Fantasy mode", or whatever). Several of the features you suggest depend on each other (more or less), so it would make sense to take the complete baggage or none of it - not just parts.

Personally, though, I don't think I would appreciate the following features in my Quest games:

[*]Only cards from sets available in a world are allowed in decks played in that world. Reprints are not allowed. This will force players to get core booster/starter/fat packs in the main world or spell shop for a world they are planning on playing in.

While I understand the rationale for this rule, like everybody and their aunt, I really don't like this because it goes so much against how the cardgame legality rules work.

[*]Diminishing returns for using the same cards/colors all the time. Every time a card/color is in a winning deck, its "win count" increases. A deck with cards/colors with a lower win count produces more rewards. This will encourage players to try out new cards and different styles and not just play particular cards all the time. Rewards are greatest when the average win count for the currently used cards is less than avg win count (plus x -- we don't want to start penalizing them right away) for all owned cards overall.

I'm probably guilty of overusing my favorite archetypes and always gravitating towards them no matter what the environment is, but I'm not keen on the idea that the game (gently) penalizes me for playing my favorite decks.

When I want a situation where I have to play cards and strategies I wouldn't normally try, there's (for me at least) an easier existing solution already: just start a new Sealed Deck game or a new Quest. I know when my Quest has gone on long enough, that's typically when I don't want to make any modifications to my 2 or 3 main playdecks anymore. And that's generally when I start a new Quest.

[*]All games played for ante at first to increase the stakes (and therefore the fun, hopefully); a bazaar item can be purchased that allows the player to opt to pay 10 times the cost of the card instead of losing the card if a duel is lost. Challenges don't require ante, but are only available periodically, as is the case now.

I don't like antes. Being forced to play for ante (or even a diluted ante, as in this case), would seriously hurt the fun for me.

As for the rest of the proposed changes, I genuinely like them - but would prefer to see them in the context of an alternative Quest mode rather than changing the current one too much.

Regarding unlimited traveling:
The key difficulty I encountered was in how to limit the traveling. If you put a limitation that was too severe (like having to win a big amount of duels and/or challenges in the current world before being allowed, or a considerable price tag), the player could be stranded in a world he/she didn't want to play for a long time. And maybe the player couldn't realize that before traveling there. On the other hand, if the limitation was totally negligible (for example, pay 15 credits per travel), why have the limitation at all?

I tried to come up with a limitation that made sense and was doable in the game balance sense...and drew a blank.

[serrasmurf]

Agree with Rumble here.

Myk,
thnx for your eloborate response!
"- i like the current flow from easy to hard"
I can understand that some would want to be able to pick between easy, medium, hard and very hard opponents. I personally prefer that you start with the easy oppenents and then the games starts throwing tougher opponents at you, that feels very questy.

Agree that the user can choose to not play with pets, no changes needed here.

[Chris H.]

I have been reading the messages and have considered the various ideas but I am not sure if I have much to contribute.

To me the biggest advantage to the new quest worlds format is the ability to face a new set of opponents and this can help to keep the quest mode feeling fresh.

The unlimited traveling issue is interesting. I want to travel without facing too much of a penalty. Lets say I travel to a new world and then face every new opponent before traveling again to another world. Would it be worthwhile to give some sort of a bonus for this?

That is, reward people for staying long enough to face the new opponents before moving on might be better than having a limitation on traveling.

[myk]

It sounds like maybe nothing should change for now, then. It can be up to users to choose to make decks purely from the Ravnica blocks to play in that world, but nothing needs to be enforced. The world filters already exist in the deck editor to facilitate in-block deck building.

What we can do is add some text describing each world, so we can explain how each world is meant to be played. This text can be displayed in the travel dialog as well as on the duels/challenges page. Could someone write up some descriptions and flavor text for the three existing worlds?

I think I would like to pursue an "adventure mode" incorporating the ideas from this thread and http://www.slightlymagic.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=1516&p=107768#p107768, but not yet. There is much work left to do in the UI first, and I don't want to lose too much focus.

[serrasmurf]

just posted the ravnica world in the decks forum...

[myk]

Awesomeness! : ) Devs: who is responsible for the integration of the content?

[freddyjsg]

Recently, I tested an Innistrad world, and got enough decks to support it. I used my Ravnica world quest to test it and it worked wonderfully, but when I tried to get back to Ravnica, it appeared this

| Open

java.lang.IndexOutOfBoundsException: Index: 0, Size: 0
at java.util.ArrayList.rangeCheck(Unknown Source)
at java.util.ArrayList.get(Unknown Source)
at forge.quest.QuestEventManager.generateDuels(QuestEventManager.java:155)
at forge.gui.home.quest.CSubmenuDuels.update(CSubmenuDuels.java:91)
at forge.gui.home.CHomeUI.itemClick(CHomeUI.java:37)
at forge.gui.home.LblMenuItem$1.mousePressed(LblMenuItem.java:50)

Also, I wanted to know how to add an aura to an opponent in a challenge, and how to put counters on permanents on challenges.

[myk]

Looking at the line in question, it seems that means that there are no expert-level duels defined. Edit: I changed the duel selection code to select from other difficulties when a duel at the requested difficulty cannot be found in r19865. Could you test to see if that fixes the problem you were seeing?

[RumbleBBU]

Devs: who is responsible for the integration of the content?

Technically speaking, any dev with the commit privs can modify worlds.txt and add the new directories and files. Some quality checking and playtesting should probably be done first, though, to catch any obvious flaws like broken a world definition line or missing duel opponents for certain difficulties or missing challenges or broken duel/challenge files (as in, fails to load).

Although I've dabbled in Quest world related stuff more than most others, I don't think I should have any higher or sole authority on deciding which worlds get added to the Forge distribution and which don't. I'm not even the best qualified person to evaluate the proposed new worlds. Personally, I'd prefer to see all new worlds that meet the absolute minimum criteria (no broken decks or definitions, enough opponents of all difficulties, and a couple of challenges) included rather than not - that would ensure maximum exposure to people who play Forge, who in turn could provide feedback on the world balance (which could be later adjusted and finetuned accordingly). Plus, more worlds to explore and travel between means more variety, which is good.

In any case, I'm currently a bit pressed for time, and consequently unable to thoroughly examine and commit new worlds. If any other dev is able and willing to do it, I will appreciate that.

[friarsol]

Personally, I'd prefer to see all new worlds that meet the absolute minimum criteria (no broken decks or definitions, enough opponents of all difficulties, and a couple of challenges) included rather than not - that would ensure maximum exposure to people who play Forge, who in turn could provide feedback on the world balance (which could be later adjusted and finetuned accordingly).

While I see where you are coming from I'd prefer the opposite, mostly due to points that Sloth has already raised. While I am able to script some nasty cards, it's a huge drain on my free time to script all of the cards of a certain type. It's much easier to script one or two example cards, then let everyone know that XYZ can be done like ABC card. In the event of worlds, there's way too much effort to put in for verification of the solidity of the world. I'd much rather these be placed in a "User generated Worlds" section, with the caveats that we haven't vouched for everything, but people can still grab them and install them (it'd be preferable if Forge had a simple way to install a new world with a click of a button, since multiple things need to happen.)

This way people can still have access and try things, without assuming we've vetted 30 AI decks and the whole play experience. If enough people nominate a certain world for inclusion, we can spend a bit less time ironing out the decks for inclusion in the base package.

[myk]

This sounds fair. I'm starting to think more about how to move all writable data out of the program dir, and this could be the first stage of that. If the quest definition is in res/quest, it's an 'official' world. If the quest definition is in My Documents/My Games/Forge/quest (windows) or .forge/quest (Linux) or Library/Forge/quest (OSX), then it could be designated an 'unofficial' world. The UI could just have different widgets for traveling to the two different kinds of worlds. The worlds.txt could also get split up -- the info would be in world.txt files in the world directories to make it easy for users to add additional worlds without maintaining any central data store.

[serrasmurf]

Hi,
Finally found some time to play a proper quest again
Had a lot of fun with the following:
I wanted to play the Spore Frog Genesis combo. Supplemented by Snapcaster Mage and Fog. So I played a custom quest with the appropriate sets. Also got a Jace, Memory Adept and a Laboratory Maniac and other helpful stuff. After a while i started travelling to Jamuraa & Ravnica world to harvest cards (founds some Breeding Pools and a Library of Alexandria ). It felt really questy and was a lot of fun!

What needs attention though (some of these have been discussed earlier):
- travelling needs a cost. Now you play one match and have 3 spell shops with new cards at your disposal
- it would be cool to only be allowed to use jamuraa/ravnica cards when playing in these worlds, but I have to admit that is also fun to just enter with your current deck, play a few matches and travel on
- in that case travelling doesn't have to cost a truckload of credits. Maybe you should be able to buy multitrip tickets or a return ticket
- It needs balancing with "unlock new set" though. Especially when there will be more worlds and most sets available in that way. An elegant solution might be a cheap return ticket that allowes you to play a few matches in a world after which you have to return (tourist visa ). While a longer stay costs more, just like unlocking a set
- I was also pleasantly surprised that when you travel to a new world you continue on the same level, based on the matches you already won. This solves the difference in power level between the worlds quite elegantly. Only consequence is that I won't be able to make very hard opponents in the ravnica world


PS
I think I finish the ravnica world when gatecrash becomes legal

[myk]

What needs attention though (some of these have been discussed earlier):
- travelling needs a cost. Now you play one match and have 3 spell shops with new cards at your disposal

It's actually an unlimited number of cards at your disposal. The card shop gets restocked when you change worlds. If you continue cycling through the worlds, you can get a lot more variety. @devs: what do you think about imposing a cost for traveling? Something small but not insignificant to discourage "shop scumming"? There already is a cost associated with this behavior, though: time.

- it would be cool to only be allowed to use jamuraa/ravnica cards when playing in these worlds, but I have to admit that is also fun to just enter with your current deck, play a few matches and travel on

you can currently self-enforce this using the world filters in the deck editor. I have related ideas that I'm cooking long term, though.