Ludia Forums

Is PVP worst strategic game In history of gaming?

I think PVP might take the honour of worst strategic game ever designed

I’m not talking games in general

Water bomb fights as a kid was a great game - whapping someone in the face was a great laugh and getting whapped in the face wasn’t so fun. PVP is a great game in that sense, Ive had some awesome evil laughs when luck has gone absurdly in my favour and I’ve been super annoyed when it’s been vice versa

But looking at strategy games, it’s not a good game when eg your playing a game of cards with a kid and they change the rules every turn on the basis of what’s in their hand

A good strategy game has parameters and the point of the game is maneuvering within those parameters to get the best possible outcome (given some degree of luck).

Unfortunately the way the game is set up it is almost completely arbitrary who wins (There are parameters but there r far too many random elements)

The most ludicrous aspect being that once you are 4 v 1 vs cleric with maxed bone, wizard, warlock with a good injure attack and heal, bard with injure, sometimes even Raika :op you have less than 50% chance of winning. How utterly absurd is that. The enemy team can’t do a trick when it’s 4 vs 4, 3 vs 4, 2 vs 4 yet all of a sudden when it’s 1 vs 4 you dont have a chance.
(In response to the silly response to this- Often you don’t have a choice whom you leave)

Come on Ludia make some effort

Starting with that absurd 1 for 1 turn system …

Move of that last spot for strategic games

I agree with you completely but this line made me thing of a card game I use to love. Here is the Wikipedia blurb about it.

Fluxx is a card game, played with a specially designed deck published by Looney Labs. It is different from most other card games, in that the rules and the conditions for winning are altered throughout the game, via cards played by the players. Wikipedia

1 Like

My lab mate and I designed a card game inspired by Fluxx’s mechanics. I should get back to refining it…

They face a problem with basic game design. The more rng you put into any element of a game that is related to your chances of success, the less skill it takes. This system was more or less designed to remove skill from being a large factor in winning. You now rely on chance to align certain circumstances for victory. This would be a lot easier to balance in a pve game, but not for pvp.
For strategy games, rng is the absolute worst thing for competitive scenarios. Players will try to get consistency and remove rng as much as possible if they are min maxing. Which this game fails to allow players to do, purely because of how much luck is involved.

Have you guys not tried out Hearthstone’s Battlegrounds? It’s an example where there’s a ton of RNG elements yet it’s still a blast to play.

This comic does a better job summarizing:

2 Likes

Not really, players will try to reduce rng like i said. Most card games heavily rely on cards that draw other cards and increase consistency by adding essentially cards that have the same function. If you’re playing at a high level, you reduce the amount of disfavorable outcomes by including only cards that fit the goal of the deck. You actually have a level of control when building decks, but with this game, the rng teams heavily disincentivize that. You can’t really build synergies and instead, have to build specific characters to be good. In card games there’s a meta of counterplay, here you’re forced into situations where you can get hard countered without much of a say, i.e. mostly melee vs ranged. This is the major difference between hearthstones rng and this games, in hs you have control, you’re actually guaranteed to play someone of your skill level (exclusing smurfs).

Battlegrounds is a new game mode in Hearthstone. I see you’re familiar with the deck building aspect of the game. Battlegrounds basically throws that out the window and it’s more akin to an autochess game. It’s fun, and very random.