FR EN ES PT
Browse forums 
Ankama Trackers

Do you think the deck system a good or bad idea?

By Quinn101 - MEMBER - May 18, 2016, 04:30:38

Do you think it was?
I mean in a fighting game the more options you have for combos the funnier a game is.
Ex: fighting game 1
Controls: punch/forward/back
Block options: up
Fighting game 2
Controls:punch/kick/forward/back
Block options: up/down

I understand why passives are limited because if they werent itd be pretty damn hard to balance but only because of how strong certain ones are right now.

But at the moment all limiting options in combat seems to do is reduce options and in a way fun. (fighting game 2 would be more fun right?) it increases Repitition (repeating if i spelled that wrong i know i can google but im on a phone)

From a game perspective
Reducing repitition= good
Increasing repition= bad
Im sure we can all agree on that.

I see it this way. ex:
With deck system: im in this situation so i can do this or this.
Without the deck system :im in this situation so i can do this or this or this.
We still have ap so its not like its broken.

So what do you think? Good or bad idea?
And why if you could.

0 0
Reply
Reactions 31
Score : 239

Passives are fine. You should be able to use all actives though.

3 0
Reply
Score : 9406

My only complaint about deck system is its easy to forget to change decks after you have gone low level dungeon farming or something.

To improve variety I have always thought all classes should have a spell branch of every element. As it is most classes have one mandatory branch that everyone uses like Water on Enu or Air for Iop, then their choice of the other branch, and in some cases tri. If every class had a solid branch in every element more mechanics would have to be introduced and there would be greater build variety and complexity in play.

0 0
Reply
Score : 1851

Good idea? Yes. Implemented properly by Ankama? Not exactly sure.

The concept that can be applied to this is that it restricts the character yes, but that allows Ankama to buff them in that aspect to levels that makes them interesting. That was the point of the new passives that helped strengthen roles.

Back then, most classes were basically DPS + mediocre on everything else. Srams always had Fear, Fecas had every spell and thus were everything, Cras never have to worry about being in melee because retreat arrow existed no matter what build you were, even if you were Fire/Earth.

Now that you have a limited number of slots for spells to put for actives and passives, Ankama can actually buff them to make them more interesting and now instead of 3 Fire/Water Fecas doing the same somewhat mediocre thing, one Feca can be a tank that lets allies shoot at him with no fear, another Feca can stack glyphs like it is no tomorrow and hurt, and another Feca places buffs on everyone else.

Why don't they just make all those buffs and not have the deck system? Because you are still stuck in the same state of the game, while making everything about the game easier to the point of being boring.

If anything, Wakfu before the deck system was just as boring. You had an answer for everything and everything was done in the same mediocre way because each class was the same from each other 9 times out of 10 if they had the same elements.

1 0
Reply
Score : 1538

I think that the deck system was a good idea, excellent on theory in fact.

Maybe some of the flaws come from being slow and restrictive for low level players, because the spells changed from unlocking very fast to imitate Dofus a little and make spells and specialities milestones to reach.

The real problem is that not every class has been correctly adapted the system. Iop as an example is entirely made for the previous system and the adaptation has brought dysfunctionalities. Not only the passives doesn't enable different roles but without utility spells the by far best Iop build always has all air spells. Sacrier on the other hand has the exact opposite problem.

So the problem is poorly adapted classes. If Wakfu always had this system maybe everything would bbe better.

2 0
Reply
Score : 27

deck system is good point. we need to choose what build we need to combine. if you have perfect build in tri element build it will make more unbalance system. some char will be really strong.. thats why we need to choose what we want to use. so there are a ot variety build spells gears and mechanism.

i just think ankama need make more balancing like osa with new summon from moon really crazy. maybe ankama need make summon more balance in pvp. feca too powerful as tank, so ankama need to make balance tank for another tank in their own role. a lot complaining sadida.. i dont know bout sadi.. maybe need balancing too. sram, cra, iop is great. they are on they own role. feca great too, he is on their own role too just pray for another tank, even i believe and i ever try to party with another tank outside feca and they are great. and i dont care if my party dont have feca. just a lot ppl shouting for it and crying without feca. eni great. masq (hmm.. hard to say masq too OP or not, but for me i really like this class, sad i dont have masq as my char.)

0 0
Reply
Score : 3494

When I first heard about them (bout a week ago) it was one of the things that made me decide to come back (revisit Wakfu after my year long hiatus).

At face value, I was expecting something akin to the "combat deck" system used in The Secret World.

While it is similar, Wakfu's version is far more simplistic.. as the one TSW uses, locks spells away via a tier system (you have to spend points on tier one spells/abilities to unlock tier two spells/abilities, thus meaning you can't have the "best" abilities of every tree right away).

Reference:



~~~

Other things to consider:

1. TSW has no classes, thus ALL of your spells/abilities are in the "combat deck" wheel.

*If Wakfu did this:
Your class would be more akin to the one you use in the tutorial (godless).

2. There are no "character levels" in TSW, you get ability points by gaining exp, thus if you play long enough.. you "can" have access to every spell/ability in the game, on ONE character.

*If Wakfu did this:
You would be able to "switch" which god(s) you're bound to, simply by changing your deck build.

~~~

All that being said, I think that while the version TSW has, opens the door up to a lot more builds (in-general) along with potential "reputation content" to appease specific gods.. Wakfu's version is still worlds better than the one we use to have, where you were essentially limited to having only a few spells "maxed" at your level.

0 0
Reply
Score : 1851
Tiefoone|2016-05-18 06:01:41
My only complaint about deck system is its easy to forget to change decks after you have gone low level dungeon farming or something.

To improve variety I have always thought all classes should have a spell branch of every element. As it is most classes have one mandatory branch that everyone uses like Water on Enu or Air for Iop, then their choice of the other branch, and in some cases tri. If every class had a solid branch in every element more mechanics would have to be introduced and there would be greater build variety and complexity in play.
To be honest, that's less of a problem of the deck system and more of Ankama just really really bad at balancing, or taking decades to make any changes to any class that will hopefully let the other branch be just as solid as the mandatory branch.
0 0
Reply
Score : 3907

Alright, so if I understand the OP correctly, you're saying that the deck system is lackluster due to the repetitive nature of the spell decks? Please correct me if I'm way off base there, but I'll continue under the assumption that that's what you're saying.

Repetitive fights are more likely a result of you're build choice than the deck system itself. Although the system encourages multiple different styles of play to fulfill different varying situations; unless you're level 200 with maxed out elemental trees and focused on mostly general stats, how exactly are you going to produce an extremely wide array of ways to play to reduce the "repetitive" decks?

The community I'd wager to guess is mostly dual element which locks you into a handful of ways to play (excluding player ingenuity and making something odd and unique) with a solitary character to begin with. If you're being efficient and trying to maximize your output in w/e capacity you're playing you're most likely going to specialize in a particular play-style that can best use those two trees.

Then after you've done that you have the wiggle room of a maximum, 3 alternative means of tackling a situation (3 decks).

I can see how you'd think you're being limited in your options, but I'd just as easily argue you have plenty options as it is. Spell deck works fine for me tbh. My Xelor for example, has two vastly different PvE decks with one focused on massive AoE and the other on more controlled single target bursts. Whereas his PvP deck is exclusively for AP removal. No repetition there at all. I even change the spells for PvP regularly depending on the opponent to maximize effectiveness.

tl;dr I think the decks are fine personally.

~Kouett

0 0
Reply
Score : 9251

I like it. I don't like that trend in MMORPGs where everyone can do everything, I like roles in party, dock system makes it so you have choose spells and not just use all of them.

1 0
Reply
Score : 3202

The deck system is great. I'm pretty impressed by it. I think it was an improvement to Wakfu. As Rokugatsu said, I don't like the idea of everyone filling every role well.

But there are of course really dumb design issues.

I mean

1. The build diversity while leveling is dumb low. Why? The progression of unlocking passives in a certain path restricts build options. Till you're max level. You will simply have to use the most powerful passives till you unlock the one that fits your build.

2. Not really a spell deck problem, but discourages build diversity all the same. Transmutes, honestly guys. I know Transmutes is a very viable way to make kama, it's also a great way to encourage dungeons. But one thing it hits the casual player hard though.

But other than that it's fine. I like the deck system.

1 0
Reply
Score : 8725

Great idea.

0 0
Reply
Score : 508

Look at it this way. Before spell deck, you could have a total of 6 spells at your level. Each class had 5 passives and 5 Actives. So, a build back then was usually, 4 or 5 actives, all 5 passives, 6 elemental spells, then a whole crap ton of utility. The deck system makes it so that there is no such thing as utility, you can eventually get all of your spells to max level, and use up to 12 of them depending on how many actives you want to use. Passives are a much better system right now than they were then as well. Spell deck system sort of screwed lower level players over, but in my opinion, it isn't that bad. Unlocking actives and passives/evolutions of passives should be milestones, and should be rewards for players. If there's no real marker for progress then a game can also start to lose it's ability to entertain.

0 0
Reply
Score : 24801
OrehRuoy2|2016-05-18 04:34:52
Passives are fine. You should be able to use all actives though.
^ this pretty much. And players should be rewarded for leveling all of their spells by having their utility spells or situationls spells strong while people who play less would have the same amount of active spells, but weaker since not leveled. It would also make people stay longer in game "to get better" instead of leveling only the spells that need for deck.
1 -1
Reply
Score : 10900

It seems to go like this: starts out slow and annoying, but gets pretty good once tough it out.

You can have 3 decks, so you could in theory have 3 different builds all on one character or even just alterations to same deck to make focus different. This is a benefit for the more versatile classes, you can have a healing and support deck, as well as a damage dealing deck, and even a deck just for playing around.

I also agree with should have room to have all actives, this could probably be done by having actives take up a separate set of spaces from the spells.

0 0
Reply
Score : 12803
Quinn101|2016-05-18 04:30:38
Do you think it was?
I mean in a fighting game the more options you have for combos the funnier a game is.
Ex: fighting game 1
Controls: punch/forward/back
Block options: up
Fighting game 2
Controls:punch/kick/forward/back
Block options: up/down

I understand why passives are limited because if they werent itd be pretty damn hard to balance but only because of how strong certain ones are right now.

But at the moment all limiting options in combat seems to do is reduce options and in a way fun. (fighting game 2 would be more fun right?) it increases Repitition (repeating if i spelled that wrong i know i can google but im on a phone)

From a game perspective
Reducing repitition= good
Increasing repition= bad
Im sure we can all agree on that.

I see it this way. ex:
With deck system: im in this situation so i can do this or this.
Without the deck system :im in this situation so i can do this or this or this.
We still have ap so its not like its broken.

So what do you think? Good or bad idea?
And why if you could.
0 0
Reply
Score : 19164

I love the Spell Deck. But each Deck needs room for 2 more Actives, and 1 more Passive.

Other than that, no complaints.

0 0
Reply
Score : 12803

Before spell deck it was always the same 2 spells because they had to balance all the spells together..Now we can specialize 1 spell. Like if I want to specialize earthquake I choose actives/passives that help earthquake. Before they had to make earthquake weak because we had too many things that could make it overpowered.

I wish we could do the same for things like strength agility chance..

0 0
Reply
Score : 4259

Having all spells available, may it be actives, passives or even both is like asking for infinite slots for attacks in pokemon instead of the usual 4.
It sounds cool and fun in theory but is completely broken in many cases.
There are ofc times where i also wished i had more slots but ultimately deck system was a change for the better.

2 0
Reply
Score : 17792

I preferred it when we had no limit on spells we could use. Passives, yes, they should always be limited. But actives and spells? Wish they would've stayed how they were before the spell exp cap was implemented. The game's changed so much from back when I fell in love with it, it's literally not the same game anymore. I would've preferred if spells would've had steeper experience curves, or if the max level for spells was like 400 instead of 200 so people would take AGES maxing everything, but, sigh... This is the way the game decided to go. Limiting existing tactics for the illusion of increased strategy.

0 0
Reply
Respond to this thread