Of course, the discussion of starter cards is moot if earning and unlocking cards is easier than it is now. If you only get one designated card a week then Starter cards are crucially important. If you can unlock one after every match then who cares?
I suspect the final rate is going to lay somewhere in-between to the point where it's going to be a slight concern to a starting player and rapidly decrease if they keep playing. So the worry is the outright rank beginners who come into the system clueless. As the game goes on longer the average player skill will only rise and that makes poor initial choices that much more of a handicap.
@Einar re: starter cards
I should have said, but didn't because of the dread max character limit, that match-play wouldn't be available until you'd created a deck. Hence, players with enough cards could set up a deck and jump into Multiplayer. But those who don't would be assured of having some familiarity with the game and its mechanics before making an irreversible choice.
Starter cards are for those people who don't have cards. People who have enough cards to fill out a deck or three can do whatever. What concerns me are people who have no cards, have no what they do, but want to try the game out. Having a bunch of such noobs running around the actual game and clogging up the matching system is frustrating for them and isn't fun for everyone else. Unless you think stomping on noobs to increase your rating is a great time, of course. If you don't, then channeling the uninitiated towards some practice sessions with the AI is for the best.
@Zakid
Same here. We'll have a chance to re-pick when the game is released but it's still a pretty lousy mechanism and I'm more worried about the people who'll be picking for the first time at release. A better way of going about it might be to have the Single Player mode open at the start and restrict new players to random play there until they can win a few matches. Say, the first three times they beat the computer they get a starter card to unlock. From there, they can do whatever. But, as it is, players are locked into choices before they get a real chance to play the game. That's only going to lead to a lot of complaining and frustration.
Can I just say that I think the maximum character limit is set too low here? Sheesh, it takes me 1000 character to clear my throat...
Anyhow, to follow up on my last point, doing away with buff stacking and changing it to a system where reapplications of an effect refresh that effect instead of sitting alongside it does mean that the current DOTs would be woefully underpowered and in desperate need of a change. But that doesn't trouble me overly since I think that those Poison and Bleeding attacks are too weak anyway.
They're only threatening when they're stacked to the high heavens. But that involves multiple rounds of applications during which your face can get pounded in by an opponent relying not on tick damage but straight attacks.
I think buff stacking – the way additional effects are added to the original - problematic. Not only is it inconsistent (Helene's Enchant Blade shows up more than once in the symbols but its effect is only counted once. You only get one +3. Compare that with Ubuntu's Rain Dance which is cumulative. You get +1 for each symbol.) and counter-intuitive, it's also potentially dangerous.
From a game balance standpoint. Not from a “Your computer is going to explode and hot shards of partially molten glass are going to stab into your eyes” standpoint.
But letting effects stack can lead to problems. Effects and values, when added up and taken all together, can crack past the normal boundaries of gameplay into areas where the game's mechanics fear to tread. And the designers haven't thought through. Cause an exploit or an abuse, in other words. Ambrosia can currently stack up 25~35 Dark. It's hard to see how that could help but that it can happen at all should be worrisome.
Count me among those who think it's a little lame that you're led to pick your starter cards before you have a chance to see how the game actually works. It's not such a big deal now since, I gather, we'll be allowed to reselect on release. It's much less of a concern if you're able to earn cards quickly. But I'd definitely pick a different trio knowing what I know now.
What I'd like to see is a kind of token system. You earn a token you go into that “Earn Cards” menu and trade them in for cards. Give players 3 to start with, let them get the 3 characters they need to start the game, and then award a few more later on. Say, award one for beating the Single Player or completing your first multiplayer game. Not too many but if you gave out 5, in total, that would give them enough cards. An added bonus, with such a system, tokens could be awarded for challenges rather than a set card.
In other words, let me unlock Higashi NOW plskthxbai.
@Brucecorp
Right. There needs to be randomness. That or you'd need to completely change the way damage and defense work. The random miss chance means that you can't be sure of an automatic killing blow every time and, therefore, can't come up with the one surefire strategy that will win each and every match. There'll be a built-in failure rate to give your opponents a chance. That the game much more forgiving for beginners since better players can't curbstomp them (Quite as well, anyway.).
But what I'm arguing isn't that we should do away with that randomness so much as tone it down. There's too much in the system for my tastes especially when it comes to the big money stuff. Having your Chi Blast whiff is good for your opponent but it's not exactly fun. It's more aggravatingly frustrating. When I spend that 70 energy I expect the game to go into the kitchen and make a sandwich for me, not for my character to sit there twiddling their thumbs while my opponent laughs at me.
@minusdriver re: obs mode.
No, it's not going to be of much use now when the player pool is so small and limited. You'll get more information listening in on the various chats and boards than you will from watching matches at this point. I definitely mean that there should be a way for spectators to view top flight matches on release if this is a seriously competitive game.
@Zerragon re: luck factor.
I think Helene's problem is that she deals a lot of damage for the energy you spend. That she attacks fast adds to it, but I don't think that would be such a big deal if she wasn't hitting for so much (In other words, she needs to be weak and quick or slow and strong. Since we already have Ashi...).
But I agree that the gameplay's very random. Perhaps a bit too much so since making the game so swingy makes luck more important than skill. You need some randomness, some forgiveness for players who aren't perfect, for the fun factor and there's definitely a place for cards like Popo that are high risk/reward but I think it's tilted a bit too far towards "throwing the keyboard at the wall in frustration because you just missed a roll" at the moment.
@minusdriver re: obs mode
The benefit of observer mode would be precisely that people's play can be seen by a greater number of players. That way successful strategies can be propagated and unsuccessful or degenerate ones weeded out much faster than they would be if the only way to learn how to play a certain way would be to actually run up against it during a match. Or by knowing where to go to find the matches that people have recorded. Metagames develop and exploits are found (And, hopefully, corrected) much slower in such an environment.
I'm not sure the game can support observable matches but if it does then you don't need to make every game observable. You just need an option to view your last match and those of the top ranked ladder players. Privacy concerns can be taken care of by providing unranked matches - the "Challenge a Friend" option.
 "Kongai"){kind=icon}