Wow, this is good!

[jasonrohrer]

Played local multiplayer earlier, and it was good.

Online is even better. I was dominating early game, but then someone caught up with me. At the end, we tied and had a very cool 2-wizard showdown. The other player won, but it was a very close showdown.

The fact that you get points for kills only, and NOT for surviving, is a simple but brilliant way to deal with the tendency to hide out and wait for the others to kill each other. Being the last one standing gets you nothing (maybe not even a kill point).

My only critique so far is the wizard character models. They're a little on the abstract side, somehow, and it's hard to make out what's what in their design. They kind of strike me as "a bluster of polygons, with a hat."

I also wonder how deep the skill goes here. Obviously, there's a lot of twitch/execution skill, but what about in the drafting? Seems like every spell gets taken. Is there any benefit to getting all of the same color across rounds? Maybe there should be.

Since every spell is taken, it seems like there's very little room for counter-picking. Paying attention to what my opponents picked in previous rounds should matter and inform what I pick in this round (otherwise, it's just a matter of which spell is best overall, which isn't that interesting). But since every spell is taken in previous rounds, that means every spell is present on the field, which means I can't counter-pick.

I suppose that the defensive spells are the best place to start... if there's a water shield that's good at stopping fire but not water. Then again, that falls into the "duh, obvious" category. I guess the interactions and counter-picks should be more subtle, like drafting in LOL, but I don't know where to start in terms of designing something like that on purpose. Maybe it's already there?

[brettpennings]

Thank you! I will respond with my own stream of consciousness. Glad your first game was so close! Showdowns are usually pretty rare, but I love seeing them happen.

I'm glad we agree on only getting points for kills. I'm a big believer in design determining type of play and this was an area where we wanted to reward players who are actually participating in the fight.

From an art perspective, our wizards, like all art, are a subjective style choice. People will have opinions different opinions about it. That is what makes it art. We get a lot of compliments on it. We also get comments like "it looks like ps1 graphics". Both opinions are valid, but at the end of the day we like what we made.

There is no bonus for picking all of the same color. Mostly because we want to encourage people to experiment with different spell mechanic combinations, but also because players sometimes pick all the same color just for the novelty of it: no need to give them more reasons. There is always one more spell than there are players, so there is an aspect of counterpicking, however a lot of the counterpicks are subtle. There are also counterpicks between spell types, but more importantly, building your own combos is probably more important, or blocking someone else from snagging a combo can be equally important.

Everyone spell isn't always present each round. It's possible that one of the spells starts with a 0 quantity. It is also possible that a spell has a 1 quantity and you snag it right away, blocking anyone else from picking it. This favors players who are behind, which is the point of the draft system.

We don't have any sort of aesthetic-based "this is better than this because water beats fire" because this leaves too much assumption on player knowledge. Rather, once you know what all the spells do mechanically, you can infer counters without actually playing the game. From a design perspective, I find this to be the most ideal. e.g. Rock Block and Vanguard counter Bull Rush because you can't run through a wall/shield, however Deflect only works on projectiles so it is susceptible to Bull Rush. Another example would be picking Vacuum because you know someone else has Boomerang and will try to snag that lethal combo.

Hope that answers your questions!

Brett

[jasonrohrer]

I like the low-poly style in general.

Playing again and looking closer, I guess it just feels like their faces are kinda "phoned in". These are the characters that we're supposed to identify with, and there's just not that much there.... a black sphere with two tiny colored eyes, mostly covered by the beard. I wish they had more "personality" somehow. With the black faces, you're obviously going for an Orco (from He Man) vibe, or wizrobes from Zelda. But if you look at Orco, he has more personality because he has bigger eyes with visible pupils. I think with just a few more polygons on the face, they could look much cuter/funnier/madder/shrewder or whatever-"er" you are going for.

We only see the faces on the drafting screen and in the close-up of the last-man standing at the end of each round. But still, they matter. They also matter for marketing and branding reasons, right?

Regarding the draft "favoring the player who is behind," well, I get it, but that's not a very interesting function of a draft, right? If it's just "who can get the biggest gun," and then "the biggest gun always goes to the weakest player," that's not very deep.

I haven't played enough to understand counter-picking..... but it's not entirely obvious that we WILL be counter-picking once we get good.

What you said about Rock Block and Vanguard is interesting... but do they also block projectiles? If so, they are strictly better than Deflect, right?

Is a full spell list posted anywhere? is there a wiki?

[brettpennings]

None of the spells are strictly better than others, so it's really not a "bigger gun" scenario. Everything has strengths and weaknesses and those all depend on the situation and spells you have already. Rock Block does indeed block projectiles, but it's also a stationary wall. Vanguard only blocks one side of you and it slows your movement slightly. Like I said, pros and cons to everything. We do have a wiki! https://magequit.fandom.com/wiki/Spells (still need to add nature spells to it yet)

[jasonrohrer]

The skill in drafting usually comes from knowing when a blocking-pick (preventing them from getting what they really want) is more valuable than a self-pick (getting what you really want). It's deep because we must weigh a bunch of different factors and compare apples to oranges.


In order for this to work, there need to be some very clear combos or synergies or something.

Right now, as far as subtle, emergent execution combos go (spell X followed by spell Y really chains together into something tricky), I believe that it's there, but I think it's too subtle to affect picking. The idea of that an emergent combo would be strong enough that I'd want to counter-pick to prevent it seems unlikely.


Another emergent opportunity for skill in drafting comes from how the various spells synergize with the maps. But the map is chosen randomly AFTER the spells are picked, right? So we can't see "islands" coming up and pick the leap spell on purpose (and even if we could, that's only helpful for one stage). Could we see the entire series of maps up front? That should probably be displayed along the bottom of the drafting screen... the whole series of upcoming maps.


As you can see, what I'm pushing for is more avenues for raising the (non-execution, strategic) skill ceiling. Players should be able to argue all day about what the right pick is in a given situation. The more information they have to inform their choice, the better.


To aid us in counter-picking, we should also be able to see all seven slots that other players have picked on the drafting screen. How else can we make an informed choice in terms of counter-picks? Currently, I only see the 7 slots of other players that picked before me (during their pick), but then it vanishes after they pick, and I need to remember it. I can counter pick against them if my memory is very good, but what I really want to do is counter-pick against the players who are coming after me in the draft (the current leaders). We need to be able to see that info in order to do this. And relying on memory for counter-picking isn't interesting (I could remember what they picked in previous rounds, but....)



I don't think you need to worry about "players wanting all red spells just for the novelty" and "no need to give them more reasons." Players wanting to do something like that, or preventing an opponent from doing it, is what drafting is all about. Think about an MTG draft as a model here.



The simplest path forward might be just that the ultimate has an N parameter, where N is the number of other spells in the same color that you have. As an example, Spitfire could run for N + 2 seconds, where N is the number of other red spells you have.

This has the nice property of NOT snowballing too drastically (only the ultimate is affected) and also rewarding more balanced picks early game, because you never know what ultimate might be left to you if you're in the lead. On the other hand, you can press your luck and end up as a real monster by the end. For example, if you draft an even balance of Red and Blue, you get a small bonus for Spitfire or Tsunami, making you harder to counter-pick against. Whereas if you've drafted almost all red by the end, everyone knows you're going for Spitfire, and you're easy to block, but if you're way behind, you'll get to pick first and become a monster late-game.

Finally, your counter pick decisions become very complex. Say you have 3 blue so far, and only 1 red, and your opponent picking after you has 4 red and 2 blue. You have both red and blue ultimates as choices. Which do you pick?

This "ultimate buff" thing is very cheap to implement and test (because you only have to figure out an N-buff for 6 spells).





And finally.... well... you didn't ask for any of this, so what's my problem, exactly? Sorry.... I'm a game designer.... I just can't help it!

I also see this game as having enormous promise. I hope this comes across as I intend it---as friendly, supportive, and enthusiastic design input from a veteran in your field.

(But I'm also self-aware enough to know that I should stop now....)

[jasonrohrer]

(This is an addendum that I cut out of the previous post):


And if you want to go whole-hog (with something that will be much more expensive to implement and test):

More comprehensive mono-color synergies are possible (where all reds buff all other reds).

You could also have affinities between colors, maybe in an intransitive relationship (fire spells are buffed by air spells.... water spells are buffed by sand spells, earth is buffed by fire, air is buffed by water, etc) This prevents mono-color-picks from dominating and snowballing. It's also harder for players to reason about, which might be a good thing in terms of skill ceiling. You pick fire in round 1, and then air in round 2 to buff fire. Should you pick another fire in round 3, (which will get buffed by that air), or another air (which will double-buff that first fire spell), OR should you pick water to buff the air spell? In terms of counter-picks, if you see someone picking all fire for a while, you want to stop them from getting an air spell (which will buff all their other fire spells) or an earth spell (which will get buffed by all the fire spells and become a monster).

Sounds complicated, but complicated under the surface, for expert players to discover, is good. Beginners can still just pick spells based on personal preference, like they currently do.

I realize that implementing "buffs" across the board is a tall order, because the spells work in such different ways.

[brettpennings]

Okay, I literally JUST realized who you were and that your advice was ENTIRELY solicited by me. HA! Absolutely no worries on feeling like you are oversuggesting. I absolutely did ask for this.

And sorry for the delay in responding to this last one (there's a lot to digest here). I seriously appreciate you taking the time to check the game out after I gave you a key and I'm flattered that you liked it as much as you did. You have some very good suggestions here.

100% agree on showing previously drafted spells somehow. We simply haven't seen what counterpicking even looks like in its current state since we are relying on memory, which like you said isn't interesting (or obvious to people watching). I'm thinking a hotkey that can toggle previous picks to overlay the player cards (think league of legends or overwatch stats button). Same thing could be done for showing the upcoming stages. In this way, we allow veteran players access to this information without cluttering the UI for new players who wouldn't even know what to do with that information.

Regarding your criticsms on the wizard faces -- we actually do plan on adding an "expression" option to the wardrobe system at some point so you can unlock different eyes for your wizard. I also think spending a little more time on the face shape and having them blink occasionally would go a long way too.

I'm still torn on the explicit spell synergy idea. I love how much your Spitfire idea reminds me of MTG (last for 2 + X seconds where X is ...). This and your other ideas are creative and I can see your point about emphasizing the choice between counterpicking and picking for yourself, but I don't want to sacrifice the importance of natural emergence between spell mechanics and letting people discover what those are instead of giving them a prescribed "this is good with this" formula. However, this gives me another idea: Passives. What if the opening draft actually snaked back on itself and you draft a passive (let's say only 4 different ones are randomly available) and then your primary spell. So last person to pick a passive would be first to pick a primary. This would do 2 things: 1. Even out the randomness of the starting pick, and 2. Create interesting counterpick scenarios. E.g. a passive called "Superhero Landing" where your wizard creates a shockwave around himself when dropping from a height. If someone had this, you would try to counterpick them from getting spells like Somer Assault, Geyser, or Time Bomb that create opportunities for upward (and then downward) force. This creates more interesting choices in drafting while still preserving the exploratory nature of emerging mechanics, and even adds more emergence. Would love to hear your thoughts on that.

[jasonrohrer]

Well, my memory of PAX is hazy. I remember talking to you for a while, and getting the Steam Key.... I don't remember you specifically asking me for design feedback.

I hope that you did. :-)

I've been playing the heck out of this game, and I can't stop. And my 16-y-o can't stop either. It's like THE game right now. I imagine this will grow steadily bigger over time.

The most shocking thing to me is how good the Quickplay matchmaking is. The time estimate (33 seconds, 48 seconds, 72 seconds) is almost always exact down to the second. I'm not sure how that's possible. Even LOL can't swing this with 2 million people online.

The matches take 15 minutes or so, so how is my wait time for a 6-person match only 33 seconds, with only 12 people online? We're starting to suspect there are bots in the mix.... but they don't act like bots.

Anyway, whatever you did there is perfect. Probably the best indie matchmaking experience ever, for a game that's bootstrapping up from a small audience.


What you're suggesting with passives is fine. Anything will make counter-picking matter more. I hear you on emergent synergies. My point is that it is just too subtle of an effect to motivate a blocking counter-pick. I'm not going to pick a dog for me just to block your leap + spitfire emergent combo. And because the strength of my picks is emergent as well, there's no such thing as a total dog for me. I think there needs to be a dog for me, so that I can really weigh the trade-off.

I might be wrong about this. Maybe the emergent synergies are strong enough that it really matters, and expert players ARE counter-picking all the time, and that is a determining factor for expert players in terms of who wins. Maybe. But my hunch is that it's not really happening...


We just got the drafting card game Sushi Go. It sounds like a dumb game, but it's really not dumb at all. It's pretty much drafting distilled down to its bare essence, and still really deep (because drafting is deep as a mechanic, generally). But the draft picks are open as you go along, and that gives you tons of rather complex information that helps you to inform your choice. And counter-picking can really matter, mostly because there are explicit combos. But when you realize you might need to counter-pick, the choice can be excruciating. Anyway, that's a good little game to study.