Something unique to duels is duel level. A draw allows both players to preserve their current duel level. This is consequential if only because the AI gets progressively more challenging (i.e., more available mana) as your duel level increases. If you haven’t faced duel level 11+ AI wizard in Chaos mode, then trust me you’ll be grateful to have draws… and 20 turns will feel like an eternity… if you face an AI opponent with lots of extra mana with which they fuel their mega spells and talismans. The only way I made it to Chaos Duel level 27 was because I managed a couple of draws against some really high level AIs.
Also, why is there a need to change the turn limit in the duel mode? That’s a big can o’ worms to open. The whole purpose of duels is to limit play-option choices as much as possible to maximize the chances that players can face players rather than an AI. The more options to play, then the more fragmented the already fragmented playerbase becomes and the more likely you’ll face an AI no matter how many players are dueling.
Admittedly, fragmenting the playerbase is not such a big deal these days. But Snapshot would have to feel very charitable to devote more dev time to consequential feature changes which are not part of steps to increase the playerbase size and thus hopefully sales.
yeah, agreed with most of that, and honestly, I don’t even duel all that often, so don’t really care, but the 20 turn limit is still silly. It seems to coincide with the same (imo) ill-schemed idea to shrink down the 1v1 maps. ie: let’s minimize the maps and the play time to make this game something it really isn’t. And yes, of course, i have battled the AI at high level games, and been thankful for a draw, but again:
The whole purpose of duels is to limit play-option choices as much as possible to maximize the chances that players can face players rather than an AI.
So, why implement something that is only really an advantage against the AI?
With a lower turn limit you’ll get more draws against AI or Player opponents, to which if it’s about preserving win streaks then it helps both ways. On the flip side, smaller maps lead to less draws so one works against the other.
true, but I for sure don’t see the value in preserving win streaks, especially at the cost of letting the games breath a bit with more turns. It’s an overall cramping in several dimensions, the physical space (maps) and time continuum (turns) both of which, in this one humble wizard’s opinion, work against the potential for an overall depth of strategy.
Well, to be fair I’m not interested in Duels full stop, but that’s more to do with the 90 second turn times than anything… the shrunk down maps come a close 2nd mind.
I’ve never had an issue with 20 turn games though, I certainly don’t think it needs 30, not for a 2 player match, we’ve been finishing 5/6 player games on 25 turn games, so in all honesty, and it just my personal opinion, I don’t think you need that many turns for a duel… definitely not on the smaller maps.
As an aside, I have always thought that the number of spells in your hand (prior to equipment influence) should match up with the number of turns in a game.
" and it will only maximize risk taking and the wins based on pure luck which is not what you want I guess."
I find this point to be a very concise point were the game’s development sort of went a bit crazy. The idea that shrinking the sizes of the maps to shrink the game time to be more accessible failed to account for the added luck factor that’d be boosted with the small maps (which would ultimately make the game more luck based, one of the reasons that the game was getting hate on the steam reviews)
The fact that I’ve enjoyed the custom lobby matches for the more interesting random generated map layouts (i believe they were larger) more than I did the duel/league maps felt validating enough.
Had lots of fun with the game as it developed though. Still interested to see if this game/IP gets anymore love in the future.
I’ve been dueling a bunch in the last week and have to reassert my annoyance with the 20 turn limit.
The entire point of this game is to, well, play the game. 20 turns is beyond argument on the short side of timing for a battle. So, the point here is not whether or not 20 turns is long enough in most cases, the point is: what advantages are there to it being set at 20? The disadvantages to me are clear: a higher % of games stopping before they are really finished. Which is, at the end of the day, just a bad business plan for a game.
You don’t spend x number of turns at the end of a game with nothing to cast.
This actually works against some aspects of build design strategy since deck size is a major component. ie: players that prefer to stay back might raise their magic power and rely on a larger deck size, more spells vs players who like to get close and rely more on attack/defense stats
If you’ve made a build for a 35 turn game and are playing in a 20 turn game mode then it’ll be sub-optimal, just as making a build for a 20 turn game mode would be if that build was then utilized in a 35 turn game mode. The solution here is not to try to alter the game mode…
The two other reason are the difference between players who enjoy draws in games and those who don’t.
well, that’s sortof the point of the thread, investigating the current turn parameters of the duel mode, and having a conversation about the pros and cons of having them set at 20. In my mind it makes more sense to have each mode optimized to accommodate and encourage as wide a range of tactics and strategies as possible and to me the current turn count is designed to produce exactly the opposite.
Interesting point, though I’d say it’s more of a swing between chess and poker than between poker and chess.
The game is never fully random, it’s always been about probability management. One thing a longer turn time does is to reduce the bluffing aspect of illusions, as once you’re past a certain point in the game disbelieve gets used on everything still on the board.
I think that’s where we differ. Imho the player should adapt to the mode, not the other way around. Duel mode is designed for players that want quicker games. I personally dislike those quick games, hence I don’t play Duel mode, but it’s there for players who want a game like that. I’d say that’s actually one area of the game that works as intended.
I think the mistake that’s been made was to change the maps in league and friendly modes to also be orientated towards those quicker games. League and Duel modes need to be distinguishable from each other in order to attract a full range of players, and unfortunately they’re not, or at least not by enough.
If you make Duel mode games last longer then you’re blurring that line even more so, if all strategies are viable in all modes then there comes a point where it might as well be just one mode (something that’s worth discussing in it’s own right). But if you’re going to have different game modes, then each mode ought to have its own niche and a strategy or build that works well in one mode shouldn’t necessarily work as effectively in others.