Close

View Poll Results: Should on-death effects be changed to be handled similarly to what was said in the po

Voters
7. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    2 28.57%
  • No

    5 71.43%
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11
  1. #1
    Senior Member Daemon Rayge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    The New England Frost
    Posts
    2,345
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    The Handling of On-Death Effects

    When you see a card like Tidal Wave or Supernova that says "All allies", one would assume that anything that happens to them would be seen as happening at the same time. Or even just a multiple target card like Lightning Strike. One would assume that both targets are hit at once and both things are seen as happening at once. However, when multiple allies will die from a single effect currently, they are treated as dying one at a time, apply the on-death effects and then sent to the Graveyard individually. However, I find this leads counter-intuitive results to how one would assume they would interact.

    One of the best examples I can give to help me explain would be a board consisting of:
    Harbinger of the Lost (Which discarded an Undead ally)
    Cryptspawn Tormentor
    Der'kan the Bone King

    If that is Player A's board, and Player B activates Tidal Wave, the game currently handles it like this:
    Harbinger takes lethal damage, then Cryptspawn takes lethal damage, then Der'kan takes lethal damage.

    I have no issue on that part, it's just what comes after is where I find some of the consistency issues occur.

    After they take lethal damage, Harbinger is sent to the Graveyard, then followed by Cryptspawn, who would then trigger as it sees 2 Undead allies in the Graveyard. Then finally Der'kan will trigger and see itself as being the lone ally and trigger.

    I find this interaction to feel contradictive to what the text says. At the time Cryptspawn was considered killed by the card effect, there was only 1 Undead ally in the Graveyard. At the time Der'kan was killed, there were other allies on the board.

    So something I propose would be for any allies with on-death effects (And in the future, any items with on destruction effects that require certain conditions) to check (In Standard Resolution Order) to see if they have met the condition BEFORE ANYTHING is being sent to the Graveyard (Or any other alternative destination it will head to).

    Gondorian did mention to me something about how cards that make cards re-enter play like Earthen Protector requiring the ally to be in the Graveyard to re-enter play first. So for situations such as that, have it so the game remembers which ally would be the one that will return to play.
    I like my weapons how I like my music. Heavy and metal!
    -Mordekaiser

    Writer of Falseblood Cultist and Thriss Crucible flavor texts.

  2. #2
    Senior Member Buqs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Georgia, USA (GMT-5)
    Posts
    2,308
    Tournaments Joined
    3
    Tournaments Won
    0
    i actually like the way it currently works
    EveryThing Changes

    "The difference between the possible and the impossible lies within a persons determination" -- Tommy Lasorda

    Check out my decks and others at Shadowera.net. Shadowera's #1 Super Fan Site!



  3. #3
    Senior Member CengizhanTR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    263
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0
    Yes nerf undead gooddd

  4. #4
    Senior Member maskee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Czech Republic
    Posts
    522
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0
    SE is full of non-intuitive rules, but DT made some consistency for almost everthink which can happend even in Meltdown which is not that bad... so I understand you, but not sure if its possible to make everythink intuitive.
    IGN: TJ Maskee - Proud member of Team Juggernauts !

  5. #5
    Lead Developer / Designer Gondorian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    England (GMT+0)
    Posts
    24,080
    Tournaments Joined
    1000
    Tournaments Won
    999
    Blog Entries
    1
    There's no way we'll be changing the approach used because the current way is the only way that will support all the different ways an ally can be killed and all the different things that can happen as a result of that. It only works because we decoupled effects that might lead to death from resolving the deaths themselves. The latter part works through the game checking every hero/ally on board in Standard Resolution Order for 0HP after any effect or action, and killing them off if they are at 0HP. That's the point they are considered to be killed, so conditional effects triggered from that should check their condition then, rather than before as desired by the OP.

    Whilst ideally it would be simple to understand, the more important thing is that it is consistent. There were all kinds of things happening in unexpected orders before all this was standardised.

    In the case of your example, it progresses like this:

    0. All allies take 5 damage in standard resolution order.
    1. Is Harbinger at 0HP? Yes, so kill him and trigger anything relevant off that, which includes default action of putting in graveyard.
    2. Is Cryptspawn at 0HP? Yes, so kill him and trigger anything relevant off that, which includes default action of putting in graveyard.
    3. Is Der'kan at 0HP? Yes, so kill him and trigger anything relevant off that, which includes default action of putting in graveyard.

    If we replace Supernova with the destruction of a Kings Pride when all those allies are showing 1HP, we see exactly the same resolution, but with different step 0. If opponent plays a Contaminated Water when all those allies are showing 1HP, we see exactly the same resolution, but with different step 0. We can't consider them all to have been killed first and then remove them all from play one at a time after that, since cards could be giving each other health benefits while in play, so the killed and leaving play needs to happen close together, without other kills in between. And I hope you can agree that the algorithm above is very simple to apply, with no need to check conditions early and remember results of them for later.

  6. #6
    Senior Member CengizhanTR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    263
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0
    There's no way we'll be changing the approach used because the current way is the only way that will support all the different ways an ally can be killed and all the different things that can happen as a result of that.

    You lost me here too long .

    Joke aside, i agree with gondorian.

  7. #7
    Senior Member ShrapnelFox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Australia (GMT+11)
    Posts
    621
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Kaos Dark View Post
    One of the best examples I can give to help me explain would be a board consisting of:
    Harbinger of the Lost (Which discarded an Undead ally)
    Cryptspawn Tormentor
    Der'kan the Bone King

    If that is Player A's board, and Player B activates Tidal Wave, the game currently handles it like this:
    Harbinger takes lethal damage, then Cryptspawn takes lethal damage, then Der'kan takes lethal damage.

    I have no issue on that part, it's just what comes after is where I find some of the consistency issues occur.

    After they take lethal damage, Harbinger is sent to the Graveyard, then followed by Cryptspawn, who would then trigger as it sees 2 Undead allies in the Graveyard. Then finally Der'kan will trigger and see itself as being the lone ally and trigger.

    I find this interaction to feel contradictive to what the text says. At the time Cryptspawn was considered killed by the card effect, there was only 1 Undead ally in the Graveyard. At the time Der'kan was killed, there were other allies on the board.

    So something I propose would be for any allies with on-death effects (And in the future, any items with on destruction effects that require certain conditions) to check (In Standard Resolution Order) to see if they have met the condition BEFORE ANYTHING is being sent to the Graveyard (Or any other alternative destination it will head to).

    Gondorian did mention to me something about how cards that make cards re-enter play like Earthen Protector requiring the ally to be in the Graveyard to re-enter play first. So for situations such as that, have it so the game remembers which ally would be the one that will return to play.
    Kaos Dark I completely agree with you that the current Shadow Era logic is contradictive to the card text.
    This leads to a lot of new (and experienced) players believing a bug has occurred.
    Without an understanding of SRO (which is knowledge only accessible from the SE website with digging) it is understandable the current functionality can leave players dumbfounded.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gondorian View Post
    I hope you can agree that the algorithm above is very simple to apply, with no need to check conditions early and remember results of them for later.
    I agree that the logic you've created is simple, and can handle the different situations, however the logic does NOT match the textual description of the card - and the average player is reading the card text not reverse engineering the code logic.

    Simple logic can also be used to achieve an outcome which matches the card text. (It may add extra "rounds" of processing the rules however this is just as easily managed.)


    - The SRO completes as per usual for all cards
    - HOWEVER when an ally/armor reaches 0 HP it is 'destroyed' it remains in play UNTIL the SRO is complete then all 'destroyed' cards are removed at once.
    IF a destroyed card affects others on it's death, the SRO is repeated.


    Using this logic and applying it to Kaos Dark's example:
    All 3 undead allies would be killed and none would be returned to the players hand.



    The best way to test if the "logic" used is intuitive, is to take someone unfamiliar with the application and show them a situation (I.e. as described by Kaos Dark with the 3 undead allies and nova) and ask them what they believe the outcome would be.
    I have employed this same technique within my company and it really opens your eyes getting an alternate perspective and allows us to create a product that is more natural and well accepted by its users.
    Last edited by ShrapnelFox; 12-18-2015 at 07:05 AM.

  8. #8
    Senior Member Buqs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Georgia, USA (GMT-5)
    Posts
    2,308
    Tournaments Joined
    3
    Tournaments Won
    0
    they can just add a link to updated rule book in the game and even during loading screen cover some of them and theaters should solve your newbie issue
    EveryThing Changes

    "The difference between the possible and the impossible lies within a persons determination" -- Tommy Lasorda

    Check out my decks and others at Shadowera.net. Shadowera's #1 Super Fan Site!



  9. #9
    Senior Member Delay of Game's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Waiting for Opponent...
    Posts
    877
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0
    The Standard Resolution Order is this:

    (1.). Action seems contradictory to card text.

    (2.). Player posts concern on Forums about possible bug.

    (3.). Player then learns it's not a bug. (Player is also lectured about how he must learn to accept some weird coding logic).

    (4.). Player now learns how the card/sequence works.

    (5.). Player now able to keep this in mind in future games.


    ....and they all lived happily ever after

  10. #10
    DP Visionary a player's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    New England, United States GMT-4
    Posts
    1,803
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Delay of Game View Post
    The Standard Resolution Order is this:

    (1.). Action seems contradictory to card text.

    (2.). Player posts concern on Forums about possible bug.

    (3.). Player then learns it's not a bug. (Player is also lectured about how he must learn to accept some weird coding logic).

    (4.). Player now learns how the card/sequence works.

    (5.). Player now able to keep this in mind in future games.


    ....and they all lived happily ever after
    You left out 2a, b, c, where people chime in on both sides regarding the possible bug.

    3 has codiciles about how it does/doesn't make sense, seem realistic, or match with the lore.

    5a, b, and c, where it is changed either accidentally or on purpose, and the whole thing recycles.
    Least active member of: ETC (Ended There by Chance)
    Account for Gondorian to transfer Shadow Crystals to: m0ghedian

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •