RNG-based block is a BAD design which should be reworked

I know you hate those of us who played during the limited release but you should probably know that the luck based block has already gone through some tweaking. It used to be that before, there was a 5% chance you could get "instal-blocked" regardless of where the shield lay. A lot of us complained and they removed it. After that it was like night and day!

In its current incarnation it still has some cringeworthy moments, but I personally find it quite pleasing in general. It is very strategic and you can definitely play to its strengths and play around it when necessary and that's what makes a good and fun gameplay element based on luck. 

You should probably know that most game designers have found that games like these NEED luck based elements like that to keep players interested, which is why a game like Hearthstone has a huge amount of luck based cards (far more than PvZH) and while hardcore Spike-type gamers would like to get rid of them, the masses really enjoy them.

One thing of note is that they reduced the block meter from 10 to 8 when they removed the 5% chance of instal-block. I assume this was to make up for the loss of that luck element and also to increase the likelihood of going through all 3 shields. I think that maybe moving it back to 10 would be good, since the more it has, the more normalized the effect becomes.

---

gabochidillo wrote:

In its current incarnation it still has some cringeworthy moments, but I personally find it quite pleasing in general. It is very strategic and you can definitely play to its strengths and play around it when necessary and that's what makes a good and fun gameplay element based on luck.

---

@Gabochido

You can't play around RNG.

If you're referring to when the block has 1-3 segments left and you play as if you're guaranteed to hit it, that doesn't work all the time. If someone has one segment left then there's no RNG, it's guaranteed to pop. 

I know what you're saying, it use to be worse. That doesn't mean that it's still okay and fine now? I agree with megraam, I also think it's garbage. 

Saying the block meter is bad design because its luck based is akin to saying drawing cards randomly is bad design. When drawing cards, it certainly sucks when you get the worst cards ever and you opponent gets the best, or for example, if your starting hand is just full of high casting cost cards, but because we draw cards randomly, the games play differently. You can also build your deck in a specific way to increase the odds of getting the cards you need when you need them, for example, by having lots of low cost cards and only a few higher cost cards. Another example is the first play. Do you play that arm wrestler first turn against sunflower if the odds of them having a card that will destroy your wrestler are about 50%? There is nothing that you can do to control this, and neither can the opposing player, it's pure luck, and yet it makes the game interesting.

With the block meter it's very similar. If you see your opponent plays creatures with low attack, you should usually not block them, since this will fill up your meter at a low cost to you. By the same rule, you should avoid using low attack creatures unless they have Bullseye. By doing this you are essentially mitigating the luck factor. The fewer hits you make, the less dependency you have on wether you get 1, 2 or 3 shield segments added to your opponents shield. But at the end of the day, luck rules the outcome and you can only play your cards to increase the odds of getting a good result for yourself while reducing the odds of a good result for your opponent.

When the shield segment gets close to filled, there is even less luck involved. If there are 3 segments left you know that there you have a higher chance of NOT hitting the block on the first hit, so that is where you place your biggest attacker. If there are two left then assume the first hit will likely be the one to hit. Sometimes the result goes against the odds and you get unlucky, just like you sometimes draw badly, but if you play to your odds, you will be successful most of the time, which is how card games work.

By the way, when there is just one segment left, there is still luck that you have to account for, and that is the power they will draw. You have to know which powers your opponent's avatar has and if they have already played any so that you know which one they might draw and then think about how that might affect the board. Then you have to position your creatures and play your cards based on the probabilities of any of the possible given plays and how they could affect the board. This is exactly how card games are played when referring to just about any card effect that has incomplete information and is part of both the fun and the strategic challenge.

Sometimes, I went super risky and bet my life on rolling a 3 to block a lethal attack. And sometimes, it worked and I went on to winning the game. So just try trusting the RNG and you will get some very rewarding moments.

Except the point I make players don't remember the time such crucial RNG favors them but remember when it favors their opponent.

And you have to note the fact when RNG favors you it wrecks your opponent, so HE remembers it. Either way you have a lot of pissed players.

---

@Gabochido wrote:

I know you hate those of us who played during the limited release but you should probably know that the luck based block has already gone through some tweaking. It used to be that before, there was a 5% chance you could get "instal-blocked" regardless of where the shield lay. A lot of us complained and they removed it. After that it was like night and day!

In its current incarnation it still has some cringeworthy moments, but I personally find it quite pleasing in general. It is very strategic and you can definitely play to its strengths and play around it when necessary and that's what makes a good and fun gameplay element based on luck. 

You should probably know that most game designers have found that games like these NEED luck based elements like that to keep players interested, which is why a game like Hearthstone has a huge amount of luck based cards (far more than PvZH) and while hardcore Spike-type gamers would like to get rid of them, the masses really enjoy them.

One thing of note is that they reduced the block meter from 10 to 8 when they removed the 5% chance of instal-block. I assume this was to make up for the loss of that luck element and also to increase the likelihood of going through all 3 shields. I think that maybe moving it back to 10 would be good, since the more it has, the more normalized the effect becomes.

---

Yes, and card RNG is enough. They don't need to add another RNG on top of it. Also a friendly reminder insta-block (actually every other damage hit) is still here for plants and devs are to blame for it.

@Gabochido

I like and respect anyone who takes time out to explain and justify, and I agree with the majority of what you're saying, but the more luck you add into a game the harder it is for a skilful player to win.

When games are decided based on luck, then it doesn't matter how good you are. If you're just going to be carried by luck or get creamed by it then how is that satisfying on either part? 😢

---

@Zaheen1337 wrote:

...but the more luck you add into a game the harder it is for a skilful player to win.

When games are decided based on luck, then it doesn't matter how good you are. If you're just going to be carried by luck or get creamed by it then how is that satisfying on either part? 😢

---

I would say that it heavily depends on how the luck element is implemented. If there is no control over the luck element, then yes, it is unsatisfying and skill is reduced as a factor to determine the result. But when there is a good implementation and execution of the gameplay element, then it actually makes skill matter more and the luck element brings dynamism and additional excitement to the game.

A simple example is in the case of a card that will spawn a creature on a random lane. If you set up a board state such that the creature HAS to land in a specific location or a couple of locations that are both convenient, then you have fully mitigated the luck factor, even though at the start there might have been only a 25% chance that any specific result would happen.  It takes skill and forethought to sculpt the board in preparation for that moment though. You might not even have the card in hand but if you know there is a high chance that you will get it at some point, then you need to account for it. Taking into account these subtle details are the ones that differentiate the amazing card player from the good ones, and to the inexperienced player it will often just seem like they are getting lucky more often.

I believe the shield meter IS correctly implemented. First consider what it adds to the game.

• A set of blocks through the game that a defender can count on and that the attacker must account for.
• A smooth distribution of the special powers, which are relatively small in effect (usually the equivalent of a 2-4 casting cost card) but due to them being free (or very cheap) and due to the moment at when you can execute them, they can create very interesting interactions and completely turn around a game.

Now, consider just how static they would be if they were completely deterministic. For example, imagine if all hits added exactly the same amount of shield as the damage that is being given or if all added exactly one segment. This would probably make for a more chess like experience that the Spikes (hardcore competitive players) would like, but it would detract from the whimsy that the more casual (and much larger) crowd enjoys from this franchise.

Lastly, think about just how much luck is really involved here. There are 3 shields and each shield takes 3-8 hits to fill up and over the course of a single game they usually average out, making it relatively deterministic.

I'd also like to counter a point that Meegram seems very sure about. He says that players remember the bad things and forget the good things so that gameplay elements like these ones generally only end up creating bad memorable experiences. I beg to differ. While this is true of human nature in general, I believe that the effect of this particular gameplay element is very similar to top decking in MTG where getting that exact card that you needed at that exact moment creates some very memorable game finales. Just look at this video:

https://clips.twitch.tv/fry_em_up/ElatedKuduFunRun

I've had a couple of cases like this, where the game is very tight and I just need that one extra super power and I set up the board to force it and get the exact one I needed. It's exhilirating!

 (note that in that video you have a person in ultimate league, having plenty of fun with the game even though they are not gaining any gems for their wins, and using a deck that has a single legendary and 4 super-rare and in fact mostly basic cards, something quite attainable within a few weeks of playing without spending any money at all. This is how the game is meant to be enjoyed.)

Trading Card Games will always have that drawing RNG in them and that cannot be taken away. That is not a reason or should not be an argument to defend some other RNG based effect in  the game. In a good, competitive game RNG based factor should be reduced as close to 0 as possible and in card games there should be no other random effects than the RNG of the deck and drawing. That is purely from competitive stand point.

MTG is a good and a bad example of that. MTG has close to none RNG effects (other than the drawing ofc...) and the cards that have RNG in them were printed way back and they don't do them any more. It's bad becuase it has mana as cards and that adds little bit more RNG to the mix than for example in PvZ Heroes. Other than that MTG is well designed game and the mana problem can be understood because it was the first TCG ever.

Back to the problem of other RNG effects of games, of course there are players other than competitive ones and the game like this should be designed for them too. Then more RNG effects tend to be good desing choice as you said in your other post. But as I said, you should never justify more RNG adding to a game by just saying "Card drawing is itself RNG".

Well no. The card element of trading card games is just a physical representation used in the real world so that people could manipulate the elements of the game, but there is no law dictating that shuffling cards needs to be a part of the game or that it can be the only part that depends on luck, so yes, it can be taken away. Mabinogi Duel is an example of a card game, very similar to PVZ Heroes, in fact, that does not have random drawing (you have a deck of 12 cards and you hold them all in your hand from the beginning). It is also wrong to think that luck has to be reduced to 0 to be competitive. You can read some of the articles that Mark Rosewater has written about game design to see how luck and game design can interact to make games both more enjoyable and competitive.

I don't know about the last couple of years of MTG, but last I played competitively, they were still printing cards that made you throw dice, though it's true that these where mostly more casual cards. However you are right, Hearthstone is a better, more modern, example of how a competitive game uses luck all over the place in its game design.

Anyway, you can't say that drawing cards is an integral part of card card games and that particular element needs to have luck, because that is not the case, it's just another gameplay element and thinking like that is just shutting down game design possibilities. It's important to be careful in the implementation of a luck based element for sure, but when its well executed it can be both enjoyable by the masses AND competitive.