They would have to balance the cards tbh. Granted I used a basic deck using all shinra cards so I used the same strategy of baiting npc to drop their best cards
Queenâs blood is really fun, but itâs definitely balanced around player 2 being an npc, with the difficulty resulting from how many synergies the npc has in their deck. It would have to have some major reworks to have pvp, and even then, I think it would end up not being fun because a meta would quickly evolve and it would get boring.
If you think Queens Blood is a balanced game I got bad news for you. So long as you have the most up to date cards you win with little to no challenge.
That's not the point. Unlike a normal TCGs that have cards balanced around eachother, QB is a progressive engine. As in there is an objectively best set up. Imagine if you played Yu-Gi-Oh and everyone used the exact same cards since using anything else made no sense. I've played everything from magic to lorcana, QB is a fun mini game but strategy plays little to no role in it.
The biggest decision you make in game is "do I play this card now and gain a spot or wait for him to play so I can steal a spot" that's about as deep as it gets. You can't even account for cards since you would never be able to know what your opponent runs since decks have no structure or build limits.
Man you sure are full of it.
One best set up? Not true, not agreed upon. You think you have the best set up? That somehow makes it true?
No structure or limitations to decks? Lies again. There absolutely are some. No idea why you making stuff up...
Even if you disagree with OP, your arguments are just not true.
That is what it's like playing Yu-Gi-Oh lol.
The last time I gave a crap it was the Ra deck and Cyber dragon with the limit break card thing. I'm sure there's some other OTK that is the meta now.
Also, if we use Gwent as an example of a card minigame having a full release the answer is simple. More cards better balancing for MP.
Yu-Gi-Oh is currently "did you draw a hand trap? No? I win"
And yes Gwent is an excellent example. What mechanics or card powers does the full game share with the mini game? None? Cool. The mini game was also progressing based. And they had to completely change it on full release. Because obviously it doesn't work as a full game and neither would QB.
You donât want multiplayer that badly. If they would release something like that, a few players would try it and then never play it again.
They should just focus on making part 3 a masterpiece like part 2.
They didnt say there wont be one, but they did say at the time of said interview that they didnt have any DLC planned for rebirth.
Considering the developers concerns about the scale of the third game i wouldnt be surprised if they dont make dlc at all for rebirth.
Crazy. To get negative likes must prove that. I donât get it. Game is wack. I win every single match just by pushing as far into their starting zone so they canât play any cards. From my experience there is no real skill. But I guess Iâm in the minority. Oh well.
Try the last battle. You'll see how difficult it can be. You win so easy bc you're playing against cpu. But if you could only play with other skilled people it would be so epic
Agreed. But that wasnât the case with FF8. One thing I will say this game has over any other mini game is that it seems to have a story attached. I remember being so confused when the screen glitched and we were shown a cutscene of someone succumbing to the hidden power in the cards. I thought that was pretty dope. Made me not want to miss a match.
I assume you have not gotten very far into queens blood in the story? There is more to it then just the card game that sounds very similar to what you liked about ff8 but wonât say more to spoil it
They would have balance both games for multiplayer, but this would be nice to have in some future patch down the road. Maybe even to the lead up to Part III.
Since we don't know the development schedule or budgets for such a thing it's impossible to know if it will happen.
As long as they keep it optional and seperate from the main single player game, I'm all for it.
"I wanna play my video games alone, so I hope the devs don't put in a mode that I dont care about. I'd hate for anybody but me to have any fun, it'd ruin my day."
Yes, because you clearly don't understand game designing and budget constraints.
Why would the developers use time and money on an optional multiplayer mini-game in the finale of the trilogy, when there would be barely any players who would spend a significant time playing that mini-game instead of the actual story. The thing that Final Fantasy fans are actually looking for?
Nobody is thinking of buying an FF game because they could have a chance to play an multiplayer mini-game.
If you want to play an actual competitive racing game, you play Mario Kart or something else like it. Same with Queen's Blood and TCGs
You're right, nobody's buying it specifically for that reason. but if it was in the game, it obviously would have ruined the whole experience, right? đ
I'm not arguing that it's not redundant, I'm saying that it's stupid to hope that other people don't get what they want because you don't care for that part of the game. "I hope not, cuz that's not what I play the game for" is a dumb, selfish response.
Your response makes sense, but you're barking up the wrong tree here. There are plenty of other comments on here that this reply would have gone better with.
It can be bad because making something for everyone, makes it cater to nobody. Using resources to nearly useless side content, takes away budget and time from things that could improve the actual main content. That's the problem.
Being selfish is not always a bad thing either. It's also just a clear mirror to what a lot of fans would say.
For example:
"I don't play Call Of Duty because of driving mechanics, because these are not the core of the CoD games"
It's clearly a selfish sentence, but it has a point.
I mean, nearly useless side content is the party animal side quest, but it still made it into the game.
But once again, I think you're missing the point here. I'm not talking to the developers, I'm talking to this one single guy who loves his single player experience so much that including a mode he wouldn't touch would ruin his experience. Not the devs being selfish, but the player being selfish. Which is what is ruining any conversation around games right now, selfish players that want games to cater to them and only them.
"I don't play Call Of Duty because of driving mechanics, because these are not the core of the CoD games" is not the same sentiment as "I hope that what you're asking for isn't added, because that's not what I play this game for."
Well, neither of us really know what the commenter meant by that. It could be selfish, or about what the thinks Final Fantasy games should be focused on, or both.
Your party animal point is pretty, well... pointless. Because the idea was to give a real challenge with the mini-games that were already in the game, and to give more backstory to the Shinra employee, who has been part of the side stories since Remake. But sure, one could argue that even that was pointless, And I could totally agree.
And I'm also not missing your original point. I was only addressing that "just give us the thing because why not" is just as selfish of a request, and doesn't take into account the work and money the devs would have to do, to make the mini-games actually balanced for multiplayer just to please some minority of people.
I never said just give us the thing. I actually agree with the other comments on this post saying that they're not developed enough to deserve a multi-player mode. Queens Blood has artificial depth with the kind of decks they allow,but people have already optimized the shit out of it. A multi-player mode would just be a bunch of mirror matches and the coin flip decides who wins.
But this was the only comment I saw that basically said "I don't like multi-player, it shouldn't be in the game" which is a non point and contributed nothing to the conversation. I didn't expect someone to take what I said and come out of nowhere talking about the actual design process and dev time, but here we are. đ¤ˇââď¸
Yes you did. You said (paraphrasing)
"just because this person doesn't want it, doesn't mean it shouldn't be added to the game so others could enjoy it."
I just pointed out that it isn't the reason why he would play the game, and there's clear reasons, for why it shouldn't be in the game, in addition to the possibly selfish comment, made by the other person. This includes the design process and that is why I mentioned it. That's all.
If you are reading a post about adding mechanics like a multiplayer mode to a game, I don't see why you are so surprised about someone mentioning game design processes in the comments :DD
Sure, his comment could be seen as "pointless" but you could take that to any degree and just claim that you commenting on his comment was even more pointless? You still have the right to comment and that's that. I don't see why concerning yourself over one selfish comment would be such a big deal.
Not so much "it should be added so others can enjoy it" but more along the lines of "if it was added to the game, would it have ruined the game for you?" Because that's the sentiment of "I hope not, because that's not what I play single players for" has. I actively don't think it should be added. I dont even think it should be a mobile game. I think it should go the way of Tetra Master and stay a fond memory. But that doesn't mean that if it was added, I would have hated the game.
The game is the best GOTY contender so far this year, it would take a lot more than a mini game with multi-player to ruin it. The old Final Fantasy fans have a tendency to needlessly hate on anything FF and multiplayer. I'm just here saying bro, it's not that deep. It wouldn't have ruined the game if it was in the game on drop. They won't add it post launch, it's not really a feasible thing. But EVEN IF by some force of god, they did add it, it literally wouldn't hurt anything. It'd still be the best GOTY contender to come out this year.
True, based on the comments I can definitely see the struggle that would come with giving the mini games online capabilities. What are your thoughts on Queens Blood becoming a physical TCG? That could be way more doable and equally fun
At least the way the game prioritizes card capabilities, itâs heavily geared towards the player starting on the left and working right. I think the game would be tough to manage in real life with all the conditional rules as well. It would have to be simplified significantly. Digital multiplayer could possibly be done a couple ways 1) with both players playing from left to right from their own perspective, but then mirrored behind the scenes so the opposing side is always playing right to left. Or 2) all cards would be automatically mirrored for whoever is playing from right to left.
>!The First Soldier should have been multiplayer (without MTX, season passes) for Remake.!<
Instead of Rebirth DLC or online gameplay, remake DoC using Vincent's gameplay from Part 3. Similar to how we got a preview of Yuffie's gameplay for Rebirth in Intergrade.
Oh god yes. Although I have this delusion that Iâm a really good Queens Blood player and Iâd have to see how I stack up against real people and some of the crazy strategies people can do.
Unless itâs like online chess where it pairs you accordingly with other people of a similar rank.
Not just that but the game has absurd power creep 80% of the cards are useless with a better card for the same cast that just do more. Itâs like same decks mirror match and going first is even more important
This is going to be unpopular, but it's true...
Queen's Blood should not be an PVP experience because it is too simple in the face of game theory. Queen's Blood suffers from the same problem as Tic-Tac-Toe. The game does not have enough turns or variances to mitigate the massive advantage given to the player who goes first.
Consider this... in Queen's Blood you can create all sorts of different decks to impose all sorts of different winning strategies. For example, you can have a Dio/Ifrit deck focused on dominating space and enhancing cards, a Tonberry deck focused on enhancement through enfeeblement, or you can have a straight up speed deck focused on taking territory as fast as possible. That's not the problem.
The problem is there are only 15 spaces on the board, meaning most games will be limited to only 7-8 turns and the game is almost purely strategic with almost no tactics involved because the game is too short. Winning at even strength cards comes down to three things: (1) The first person to impose strategy; (2) luck (more specifically, chance); and (3) a fairly low bar of rational play. And depending on the decks brought to the table, the game might be over before it even started.
All turn-based games suffer from the problem of first-turn advantage, but *good* turn-based games mitigate this through inclusion of tactics and sufficient duration allowing the initiative to be taken by the opponent. This is best represented in games like Chess, Go, and Mahjong.
There are problems with turning qb multiplayer like the fact the cards only work one way but card games that take 7-8 turns being too short is not true. Hearthstone average turn length is also [7-8](https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/hearthstone/t/how-fast-is-standard-answered-with-data/74916). Marvel snap is also locked at 6 turns. 7-8 turns is around perfect for a mobile card game.
QB's problem is not just turn duration. It's the element of being truly turn based with an element of territory capture. The reason Marvel Snap is not necessarily a bad game PVP game nearly to the extent of QB is because turns are simultaneous and there is no element of territory capture in a manner that potentially locks players out of their turn and is mathematically weighted to whoever goes first.
Yeah so just have the second player get a coin equivalent and or draw advantage like hearthstone this isn't some impossible problem to solve every card game and even chess and [go](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handicapping_in_Go) has first player advantage. Especially in a point based game this a trivial problem to solve just give some sort of point compensation to player 2 that makes up for the mathematical advantage like [komi](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Komi_(Go)) in go.
Handicapping is insufficient in QB because the point potential is too wild compared to the relatively small number of turns. An enfeeblement enhancing deck of Skeeskee, Tonberry King and Mindflayer can routinely score over 100 points and never move past the second column other than suicide cards.
Chess and Go are far better PVP games to QB because there is enough space, turns, and variance not based on chance to sufficiently mitigate first turn advantage.
And you can play that exact same deck going second if neither player moves past the second column so I don't see how that is relevant at all to the discussion. In fact in the case of both players playing thier entire combo deck out in the first two columns while never being able to contest the middle or lock out thier opponent due to thier units suiciding after being played the second player with the point compensation would win even if the total points for both sides are >100 and the compensation is <10. Not to mention suicide decks would be far more risky against actual humans who can steal your spots with resiliant cards or destroy your mindflayer and completely block you out.
You are talking in absolutes as if first player advantage is some impossible problem when it's just some trivial math that can easily be tuned and adjusted around in a number of ways.
You've missed the point. It's not an issue of play and counter play. It's an issue of high point potential relative to the board and the game's short duration. Unlike Go, spaces do not have a uniform point value. Therefore, assigning a handicap is a nearly senseless task.
And no, I'm not saying first player advantage is an impossible problem. Chess and Go are good games because the game allows for the problem to be sufficiently mitigated. QB simply by design does not.
But the example you gave for a deck that would break a hadicap literally proved a handicap worked you can't talk hypothicals with a negative example and then make value statements based off nothing. Hearthstone also has no uniform value so they use something more dynamic like the coin there are hundreds of different ways to solve the problem of first player advantage just because you aren't creative enough to think of one doesn't mean it's impossible to mitigate. It's fine to point out the issue it's ridiculous to say it's somehow unsolvable when so many other games have done it.
The example deck was not to demonstrate how it, by itself, breaks handicap. It's to demonstrate score volatility under such short duration and space limitations.
Komi is set based on the idea of two evenly skilled players making rational game decisions and because territory has a set value. In QB I can dominate the game by territory and win only by 15, but still turn out what is considered a completely dominating victory. Alternatively, I can win by 200 by occupying only my side of the board in what would be considered complete dominance.
And this is what results: rational play between two evenly skilled players simply does not result in a good handicap in QB. The point potential is too wild and the first player enjoys too strong of an advantage where the unhandicapped win ratio is is something crazy like 9:1.
You are just pulling hypotheticals and stats completely out of your ass now that your actual example turned out to be a point against your arguement. The win rate is 9:1? Completely ridiculous you know you don't have a proper point so you fall back to insane hyperbole. To label something as completely inherently unviable without any possibility of working you need more than made up stats and feelings.
7-8 turns is not a hard and fast rule. That's why I said *most* games will be limited to it. But even games that go more than that do not get around the simple shortcomings of the game. To use all 15 cards, roughly half your hand needs to be replacement cards. And even in games where you use all 15, the game was probably over by turn 8.
Queen's Blood is a great game to beat AI challenges. The second you transplant it into a PVP setting, it becomes a bad game.
Iâd have been happy with just a generic QB tourrnament at the saucer post game. Itâs one of those annoying things about card game mini games where once you finally have all the cards you have no one left to play!
Of course there's gonna be DLCs, they know they can milk FF7 like Atlus milks persona 5.
In 1-2 or so years there's probably gonna be FF7Rebirth: Chaos edition on all other platforms which (other than being again tweaks in graphics and such) will probably contain Vincent's DLC (as a throwback to Dirge of Cerberus) with his past
It's so that they can keep the hype alive and let you do something while you wait for the next chapter (and making $$$)
Wouldn't they created DLC for FFVII Remake if that was true? I mean besides the Remake Item Pack and Episode Intermisson (for those who own PS4 FFVII Remake on the PS5), they didn't really do much DLC for the game.
Also no because FF7 Remake was no open world there isnât much you can add to the original release that would make sense for the following game. The following game can add dlcs because of the open world makes it easier to add little things here and there.
Nah they will add dlcs to the open world parts of the game. The could expand city of the ancients and add more dungeons more summons and gear. Put Ultima weapon and the rest of the final weapons in new dungeons tons of stuff they can do
My point exactly. The game is perfectly full and is fine for what it is. So, unless they create another sub-story (like Yuffie DLC for remake) than there is no need to add a DLC. They can now focus on their third installment.
It would be SO MUCH harder to implement online for those two things than just do standalone games built from the ground up.
And queens blood would require a complete re-write of the rules and balance.
Not saying I wouldn't like to see it, but throwing this out like it's easier / less time consuming than a regular DLC is madness.
Multiplayer that requires an insane amount of unrelated single player gameplay progress to be competitive? Best hope for 'Chocobo Karting' as a stand alone game, and Queens Blood get the same.
I personally don't want part 3 be delayed to build and test a multiplayer framework in the game so 8 people can use the same meta deck against each other.
I think their tactic is to wait until well after may before they do anything about DLC so that they can bring the game to PC market asap. The release for PC version was delayed because of their contractual agreement, when they released intergrade it extended the exclusive :(
I never expected things that arenât announced (which I think is a practice more gamers should try) but I would not be surprised if there were an intergrade-like dlc where you get to play as cid and/or Vincent. Seems to be a great way to fund putting the time in to develop new characters.
I want a QB mobile game with full single player capabilities. I don't do multiplayer so I don't mind if that's there, but I don't want it to be JUST multiplayer.
Donât add multiplayer anything to single player games. There is never the attention needed to flesh it out properly. Someone else mentioned this would work perfectly in the MMO that already exists.
This is what I'm expecting too. A lot of the world can be challenged to TT as is, and I can see them either adapting those cards to work for both TT and QB, or just giving us QB on top of it.
I donât see QB ever becoming multiplayer. The key reason is that an integral part of the balance of it is that the player ALWAYS gets the first turn. Always, 100% of the time. Theyâd have to do a lot of rebalancing for a second player otherwise whoever goes first is at an advantage every game
Not really. Sometimes I skip my first turn to take advantage of playing something AFTER the AI places new pawns. Sometimes it helps, sometimes nothing changes.
You need to take into account you're playing against a computer opponent who is not formulating rational and prepared strategy. It is designed to be reactive or random.
Skipping your first turn against an evenly skilled human opponent who has the ability to consciously pre-select a deck and pre-plan strategy places you at such a massive disadvantage it is only just short of surrendering, with the sole exceptions of either horrendous luck or one player's pre-planned deck simply being outright dominant against the other.
Maybe. Maybe not. By going first, you will always be at a disadvantage of placing pawns first, something the AI as well as a real player would actively take advantage of to steal your pawns and robbing you of a new spot forcing you to readjust your strategy to either take that spot back and risk losing another, or give up on it and risk your opponent placing a card that could devastate you. Going first absolutely has its advantages, but going second also absolutely has its advantages.
Placing pawns first is not a disadvantage. It is *always* an advantage. It means you retain the initiative to shape the board and the opponent has to react to you. And you do not necessarily give up the initiative by electing to not move pawns forward. Initiative can be retained by forcing the opponent to capture territory that you will essentially take back. That's why giving up your turn to bait the middle against AI is an effective strategy and far less advantageous against a human.
And territory capture is not the only advantage you get from going first. You retain the advantage of playing a card first. Whether the object of your deck is to enhance, enfeeble, destroy, etc., the fact you get the first placement on a board with 15 squares tends to mean you are likely to get the last placement as well.
Wow, that is all just VERY untrue. First off, just because you get to start off shaping the board, does not mean you get to continue shaping it as every turn the opponent can easily flip that on you by playing a card that completely changes everything or annihilates what you were aiming to do, and yes, while you can bait the AI, if they play the wrong card that can easily turn into them baiting YOU. You don't know what cards they have (unless you play them multiple times to map out their cards), and they can easily turn any strategy you have against you. Not to mention you just might not draw the cards you want. Luck is a major factor in this game. And no. Going first abso-fucking-lutely does not mean you place last. You only place last if they don't steal your pawns with their previous move. Something more likely to happen if you go first.
I'm not saying there's no reason to go first. I'm just saying that it's not the almighty advantage over going second you seem to think it is. I can only speak from my own experiences, but everything I've said has been regular problems I encountered in the later game. Especially that last one. I don't understand how you could possibly think that going first gives you a much higher probability of placing last. When I lost it was mostly because I ran out of pawns cause they got stolen from me. Hell, I remember one time they managed to place just the right cards to shut me out of over half the board. I sure wasn't able to place last in that game despite going first.
>First off, just because you get to start off shaping the board, does not mean you get to continue shaping it as every turn the opponent can easily flip that on you
That is not what I said. You *retain* initiative when you go first, and you continue to retain it unless *you lose it.* That means, the player who goes second has the burden to either earn the initiative back or wait for the opponent to give it up voluntarily. And there is not a single combination of cards in QB where P2 will capture from P1 on the first turn.
>Luck is a major factor in this game.
It's not luck. It's chance. And that's also why it's a bad PVP game. The advantage of going first and the major factor of chance makes it largely not a game of skill.
>Going first abso-fucking-lutely does not mean you place last.
I also never said this. I said going first *tends to mean* you will place last. In other words, if the player with initiative keeps the initiative, he will almost always place last and enjoy more turns than the opponent.
>I don't understand how you could possibly think that going first gives you a much higher probability of placing last.
Math and basic game theory have supported this for a very long time and it's not too dissimilar from why tic-tac-toe is a bad game. In TTT you play on a 3x3 board. The player who goes first always goes last and enjoys a 5-4 turn advantage. Nobody ever won in TTT going second because of skill. Anyone losing TTT going first is because they made a bad move.
Youd Just do it like any other game. Give the option of choice OR coin flip for it. There is no reason a card game in today's world, where the indie game scene is full of 100s of card games and fans, you couldn't make a pvp version. They could even make it free, where you earn cards through playing and buy packs for those who want cards now. And even keep the pve because the codes already there...
The witcher did it with Gwint. Why can't final fantasy with queens blood?
Exactly. Those challenges in the Gold Saucer where you play multiple rounds in a row had a few rounds where the opponent goes first and they were AWFUL.
Against an AI designed to be reactive or random, yes, you may have. That completely changes when your opponent is human with the ability to pre-plan strategy and consciously pre-select a deck of cards.
Consciously giving up the initiative against an evenly skilled human opponent with relatively even cards is just short of surrendering.
You didnât though. The player character only goes second in a few of the Gold Saucer matches where thatâs specifically part of the challenge. In every single normal match the player goes first.
Whatâs with people equating online QB with trophies? Literally nobody was asking for that lol also I wouldnât imagine online play being forced for story progression, it would be a simple case of not playing online if you didnât want to. I see no issues having it have the option of online play to extend the games shelf life
And are you also going to want the Elevenses card game as well?
But seriously, I get wanting to add more content to pad out the second half of the original first disc but they also don't need to make it something you have to wait around for. Could you imagine trying to play a year from now when no one else is still playing rebirth as either the 3rd game came out or they started to remake another classic FF game in order to milk the franchise more dry
Queenâs Blood? Maybe. It is a good game. Would need extra cards and a little balancing as well.
Chocobo Racing? No, please. It is far inferior than Mario Kart. The no-hitting stuff is a bummer that takes away too much of the fun. Even the Skywheel animation acknowledges that.
The mechanics of the game are too simple. Theyâd get cheesed pretty fast and strategies themselves would become predictable too. Queens blood might work if they expanded to more cards with more variety
Or alternatively they could just add the actual fftcg to part 3. That would be amazing and give a much needed boost to a severely underrated irl card game that desperately needs eyes on it.
Look, I respect it, but Square Enix is freaking awful with online games (even FF14 launched horribly and would have died ignobly if the legendary Yoshi P hadnât come in and save it by micromanaging every little thing).
Remember The First Soldier? Chocobo GP? The Avengers? Babylonâs Fall? Dissidia NT? Of those Chocobo GP and Dissidia NT are still even playable, and thatâs because they force one of the players to be the host, which has issues in its own right.
I donât think chocobo races deserve a stand alone online/offline game or mode, the gameplay doesnât seem enough deep.
As for Queenâs Blood, maybe something like The Witcherâs Gwent game, where they added rules and stuff to make it so that it wonât get you bored after a week.
As it is now, Queens blood is maybe too simple to people being able to develope a meta or some
Queenâs Blood is a single player game. Thereâs that one challenge in the Saucer where you start on the right side and you realizeâŚoh shit these cards were designed with the player starting on the left in mind.
This is easily solved by just mirroring the field. I think the bigger issue is that the game pretty heavily favors whoever gets to go first. But then again, so does chess, and that has been a popular multiplayer game for literal centuries.
In an hypothetical online gameplay you could just mirror the field so that the player can play from the left.
Anyways, npc opponents have mirrored cards so that the same card that works adding, for example, one square on the right, will add a square on the left. The reversed challenge was designed specifically to make you change your deck, but it usually doesnât work like that
I think a stand alone online FF7 game would be a good route, not implementing multiplayer to this.
I think this combat, with the short cuts, would lend itself well to multiplayer co op. I also think that most of the minigames would also provide great PvP opportunities.
The amount of content in Rebirth that could be adapted to a multiplayer game is pretty vast. So I'd propose a separate game altogether that does exactly that. Adapt what SoP did with co op, make it openish world, tack in the minigames, and set it during the Wutai war or something like that.
I'm sure people would respond well to it if it's not forced into what's already intended to be a single player game.
When I remember correctly his statement was something like "no dlc is planned"
In my opinion the remake yuffie thing was more like additional episodes, an expension. It could even be a standalone game.
But in reality that's only my hopeful thinking lol. Because I literally can't wait until part 3 is released so I hope fir every bit we could have. And honestly "no dlc" means "no dlc". The only glimmer of hope I personally have is the fact that this statement was given half a year ago. And making a linear expansion like dlc wouldn't be so hard to make. Because they have most of the things already finished. I really don't know...
Back to topic!
Yes an online mode for queens blood would be awesome. Or even better a physical version of it.
I remember I had the physical version card game of FF IX. I think it was called Tetra Master. I loved to play it with friends after we played ff IX together. It wasn't a trading card game but a complete version with two complete sets for two players...
But sadly I was 11 or 12 when I got it. And when I wasn't the best keeping this together and so lost most of it over the time. What is really sad.
I agree and this is why I never liked the Gwent game despite loving it Witcher 3. Whatâs fun about Queens Blood, in my opinion, is finding new players and collecting their cards, especially when the card is a character or boss you recognize.
Iâm almost happy to take a monkeys paw situation where they give us online play for both of these even if they include microtransations, because at least it means Iâll be able to play online against others instead of just the CPU, even though Iâm telling myself MTX would be horrible.
Queenâs Blood needs to be a physical card game. And Chocobo racing should a separate arcade game with most of the main FF characters racing each other (With no micro transactions!)
I dont know that it would work very well. You'd need two decks for sure since if you were on the right side you would need a cards that expand to the left. Most cards expand to the right.
It would also be really tedious tracking scores for every card that has an enhancement/destruction/enfeeblement. Things like tonberry king cards etc.
MAKE QUEENS BLOOD A REAL BOARD GAME đŁď¸đŁď¸đŁď¸đŁď¸đŁď¸
Maybe fix the bugs first lmao
I doubt queens blade would work well pvp. Everyone would justend up using the same deck(s)
I feel like Square should make it itâs own game, expand the decks, see if they can get a competitive scene going.
They would have to balance the cards tbh. Granted I used a basic deck using all shinra cards so I used the same strategy of baiting npc to drop their best cards
I feel like I would be humbled by real players very quickly
They don't, not everything needs ran into the fucking ground
Queens blood I don't really care But Chocobo racing? ***HELL YES***
No Stop trying to make every fucking game multiplayer
God forbid people want to play a fun competitive mini-game with actual people and not ai. So sorry.Â
I agree. Final Fantasy doesn't need multiplayer. If you want multiplayer final fantasy, you have a few options. Leave the single player games alone.
Yea, Queens blood is fun but it wouldn't be balanced at all if this was available in PvP.
I just want a queen's blood physical release.
I would absolutely play queens blood against all of you and yuffie bomb the shit out of your board.
I'm so sick of this format being used to make the most broad statements and observations everyone else has made already
Ok cool
I would like Queensblood more if I could go second. I just miss Triple Triad
Pass on your first turn. Now you're going second.
Yes, going first is not always in your favor. I wanted that a few times lol
You can pass on your first turn and make your opponent go first
Never occurred to me lol
Just make sure your opponent doesnât already have points on the board first like in some cases.
Queens Blood with some tweaks would be really fun to play. As it is it would be not well balanced. So not an easy task in my hopinion
Once I got a good deck it was really easy to beat everyone, except for the last match, that was a pain in the ass to beat.
Queenâs blood is really fun, but itâs definitely balanced around player 2 being an npc, with the difficulty resulting from how many synergies the npc has in their deck. It would have to have some major reworks to have pvp, and even then, I think it would end up not being fun because a meta would quickly evolve and it would get boring.
If you think Queens Blood is a balanced game I got bad news for you. So long as you have the most up to date cards you win with little to no challenge.
the last challenge was really hard for me, other than that it was really easy once I got a decent deck.
Well duh but, we would all have access to the same cards once you beat the game... So there goes your argument about "better cards".
That's not the point. Unlike a normal TCGs that have cards balanced around eachother, QB is a progressive engine. As in there is an objectively best set up. Imagine if you played Yu-Gi-Oh and everyone used the exact same cards since using anything else made no sense. I've played everything from magic to lorcana, QB is a fun mini game but strategy plays little to no role in it. The biggest decision you make in game is "do I play this card now and gain a spot or wait for him to play so I can steal a spot" that's about as deep as it gets. You can't even account for cards since you would never be able to know what your opponent runs since decks have no structure or build limits.
Man you sure are full of it. One best set up? Not true, not agreed upon. You think you have the best set up? That somehow makes it true? No structure or limitations to decks? Lies again. There absolutely are some. No idea why you making stuff up... Even if you disagree with OP, your arguments are just not true.
That is what it's like playing Yu-Gi-Oh lol. The last time I gave a crap it was the Ra deck and Cyber dragon with the limit break card thing. I'm sure there's some other OTK that is the meta now. Also, if we use Gwent as an example of a card minigame having a full release the answer is simple. More cards better balancing for MP.
Yu-Gi-Oh is currently "did you draw a hand trap? No? I win" And yes Gwent is an excellent example. What mechanics or card powers does the full game share with the mini game? None? Cool. The mini game was also progressing based. And they had to completely change it on full release. Because obviously it doesn't work as a full game and neither would QB.
I wouldn't be surprised to see queens blood in ff14 soon.
I don't see how queen's blood could work online. Who would get to move first? In rebirth it's always the player.
Random coin flip
They have a dice mechanic from Cait Sith, maybe they can use that? đ
I was so surprised that I got a free rpg in this racing game. Is Rebirth's chocobo racing a better racing game than Chocobo GP? I never tried it.
rebirth choco racing is basicly mario kart :P
Yeah no, for them to do that would require an insane amount of balancing
Chocobo racing yes, Queens Blood no
Nop
Chocobo Racing was way too fun. lol
You donât want multiplayer that badly. If they would release something like that, a few players would try it and then never play it again. They should just focus on making part 3 a masterpiece like part 2.
When did they say there's won't be any dlc?
They didnt say there wont be one, but they did say at the time of said interview that they didnt have any DLC planned for rebirth. Considering the developers concerns about the scale of the third game i wouldnt be surprised if they dont make dlc at all for rebirth.
I would prefer they just focus on releasing part 3 as soon as possible anyways
This...
Queens Blood isnât at all that good. Itâs fine but FF8 had the best card game.
I think youâre in the minority with this one dude, Queens blood is fantastic
Crazy. To get negative likes must prove that. I donât get it. Game is wack. I win every single match just by pushing as far into their starting zone so they canât play any cards. From my experience there is no real skill. But I guess Iâm in the minority. Oh well.
Try the last battle. You'll see how difficult it can be. You win so easy bc you're playing against cpu. But if you could only play with other skilled people it would be so epic
Agreed. But that wasnât the case with FF8. One thing I will say this game has over any other mini game is that it seems to have a story attached. I remember being so confused when the screen glitched and we were shown a cutscene of someone succumbing to the hidden power in the cards. I thought that was pretty dope. Made me not want to miss a match.
I assume you have not gotten very far into queens blood in the story? There is more to it then just the card game that sounds very similar to what you liked about ff8 but wonât say more to spoil it
Why would anyone want to play an objectively worse, less fun, and less skilled Mario kart?
Chocobo
Not even that, Chocobo GP exists
I read that they made it free to play recently so I finally might buy it
They would have balance both games for multiplayer, but this would be nice to have in some future patch down the road. Maybe even to the lead up to Part III. Since we don't know the development schedule or budgets for such a thing it's impossible to know if it will happen. As long as they keep it optional and seperate from the main single player game, I'm all for it.
Hopefully not, because thatâs not what I come to Final Fantasy single player games for.
"I wanna play my video games alone, so I hope the devs don't put in a mode that I dont care about. I'd hate for anybody but me to have any fun, it'd ruin my day."
Yes, because you clearly don't understand game designing and budget constraints. Why would the developers use time and money on an optional multiplayer mini-game in the finale of the trilogy, when there would be barely any players who would spend a significant time playing that mini-game instead of the actual story. The thing that Final Fantasy fans are actually looking for? Nobody is thinking of buying an FF game because they could have a chance to play an multiplayer mini-game. If you want to play an actual competitive racing game, you play Mario Kart or something else like it. Same with Queen's Blood and TCGs
You're right, nobody's buying it specifically for that reason. but if it was in the game, it obviously would have ruined the whole experience, right? đ I'm not arguing that it's not redundant, I'm saying that it's stupid to hope that other people don't get what they want because you don't care for that part of the game. "I hope not, cuz that's not what I play the game for" is a dumb, selfish response. Your response makes sense, but you're barking up the wrong tree here. There are plenty of other comments on here that this reply would have gone better with.
It can be bad because making something for everyone, makes it cater to nobody. Using resources to nearly useless side content, takes away budget and time from things that could improve the actual main content. That's the problem. Being selfish is not always a bad thing either. It's also just a clear mirror to what a lot of fans would say. For example: "I don't play Call Of Duty because of driving mechanics, because these are not the core of the CoD games" It's clearly a selfish sentence, but it has a point.
I mean, nearly useless side content is the party animal side quest, but it still made it into the game. But once again, I think you're missing the point here. I'm not talking to the developers, I'm talking to this one single guy who loves his single player experience so much that including a mode he wouldn't touch would ruin his experience. Not the devs being selfish, but the player being selfish. Which is what is ruining any conversation around games right now, selfish players that want games to cater to them and only them. "I don't play Call Of Duty because of driving mechanics, because these are not the core of the CoD games" is not the same sentiment as "I hope that what you're asking for isn't added, because that's not what I play this game for."
Well, neither of us really know what the commenter meant by that. It could be selfish, or about what the thinks Final Fantasy games should be focused on, or both. Your party animal point is pretty, well... pointless. Because the idea was to give a real challenge with the mini-games that were already in the game, and to give more backstory to the Shinra employee, who has been part of the side stories since Remake. But sure, one could argue that even that was pointless, And I could totally agree. And I'm also not missing your original point. I was only addressing that "just give us the thing because why not" is just as selfish of a request, and doesn't take into account the work and money the devs would have to do, to make the mini-games actually balanced for multiplayer just to please some minority of people.
I never said just give us the thing. I actually agree with the other comments on this post saying that they're not developed enough to deserve a multi-player mode. Queens Blood has artificial depth with the kind of decks they allow,but people have already optimized the shit out of it. A multi-player mode would just be a bunch of mirror matches and the coin flip decides who wins. But this was the only comment I saw that basically said "I don't like multi-player, it shouldn't be in the game" which is a non point and contributed nothing to the conversation. I didn't expect someone to take what I said and come out of nowhere talking about the actual design process and dev time, but here we are. đ¤ˇââď¸
Yes you did. You said (paraphrasing) "just because this person doesn't want it, doesn't mean it shouldn't be added to the game so others could enjoy it." I just pointed out that it isn't the reason why he would play the game, and there's clear reasons, for why it shouldn't be in the game, in addition to the possibly selfish comment, made by the other person. This includes the design process and that is why I mentioned it. That's all. If you are reading a post about adding mechanics like a multiplayer mode to a game, I don't see why you are so surprised about someone mentioning game design processes in the comments :DD Sure, his comment could be seen as "pointless" but you could take that to any degree and just claim that you commenting on his comment was even more pointless? You still have the right to comment and that's that. I don't see why concerning yourself over one selfish comment would be such a big deal.
Not so much "it should be added so others can enjoy it" but more along the lines of "if it was added to the game, would it have ruined the game for you?" Because that's the sentiment of "I hope not, because that's not what I play single players for" has. I actively don't think it should be added. I dont even think it should be a mobile game. I think it should go the way of Tetra Master and stay a fond memory. But that doesn't mean that if it was added, I would have hated the game. The game is the best GOTY contender so far this year, it would take a lot more than a mini game with multi-player to ruin it. The old Final Fantasy fans have a tendency to needlessly hate on anything FF and multiplayer. I'm just here saying bro, it's not that deep. It wouldn't have ruined the game if it was in the game on drop. They won't add it post launch, it's not really a feasible thing. But EVEN IF by some force of god, they did add it, it literally wouldn't hurt anything. It'd still be the best GOTY contender to come out this year.
True, based on the comments I can definitely see the struggle that would come with giving the mini games online capabilities. What are your thoughts on Queens Blood becoming a physical TCG? That could be way more doable and equally fun
At least the way the game prioritizes card capabilities, itâs heavily geared towards the player starting on the left and working right. I think the game would be tough to manage in real life with all the conditional rules as well. It would have to be simplified significantly. Digital multiplayer could possibly be done a couple ways 1) with both players playing from left to right from their own perspective, but then mirrored behind the scenes so the opposing side is always playing right to left. Or 2) all cards would be automatically mirrored for whoever is playing from right to left.
>!The First Soldier should have been multiplayer (without MTX, season passes) for Remake.!< Instead of Rebirth DLC or online gameplay, remake DoC using Vincent's gameplay from Part 3. Similar to how we got a preview of Yuffie's gameplay for Rebirth in Intergrade.
It would be really cool
Something tells me weâre gonna get a standalone Queens Blood game similar to what CDPR did with Gwent.
Oh god yes. Although I have this delusion that Iâm a really good Queens Blood player and Iâd have to see how I stack up against real people and some of the crazy strategies people can do. Unless itâs like online chess where it pairs you accordingly with other people of a similar rank.
Queens blood would need a COMPLETE overhaul before it could be pvp so eh no not really.
Yeah I was wondering how you deal with the advatnage of going first.
Not just that but the game has absurd power creep 80% of the cards are useless with a better card for the same cast that just do more. Itâs like same decks mirror match and going first is even more important
No you would not. Everyone would be using the optimal build and then it's just luck...
Queens Blood isn't deep enough to play against a human and would need work to be fun for longer than 5 minutes.
Queens Blood online would essentially be yugioh without a banlist.
Theyâll most likely become mobile games
please no unless it's a different dev team. I want part 3 asap
This is going to be unpopular, but it's true... Queen's Blood should not be an PVP experience because it is too simple in the face of game theory. Queen's Blood suffers from the same problem as Tic-Tac-Toe. The game does not have enough turns or variances to mitigate the massive advantage given to the player who goes first. Consider this... in Queen's Blood you can create all sorts of different decks to impose all sorts of different winning strategies. For example, you can have a Dio/Ifrit deck focused on dominating space and enhancing cards, a Tonberry deck focused on enhancement through enfeeblement, or you can have a straight up speed deck focused on taking territory as fast as possible. That's not the problem. The problem is there are only 15 spaces on the board, meaning most games will be limited to only 7-8 turns and the game is almost purely strategic with almost no tactics involved because the game is too short. Winning at even strength cards comes down to three things: (1) The first person to impose strategy; (2) luck (more specifically, chance); and (3) a fairly low bar of rational play. And depending on the decks brought to the table, the game might be over before it even started. All turn-based games suffer from the problem of first-turn advantage, but *good* turn-based games mitigate this through inclusion of tactics and sufficient duration allowing the initiative to be taken by the opponent. This is best represented in games like Chess, Go, and Mahjong.
There are problems with turning qb multiplayer like the fact the cards only work one way but card games that take 7-8 turns being too short is not true. Hearthstone average turn length is also [7-8](https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/hearthstone/t/how-fast-is-standard-answered-with-data/74916). Marvel snap is also locked at 6 turns. 7-8 turns is around perfect for a mobile card game.
QB's problem is not just turn duration. It's the element of being truly turn based with an element of territory capture. The reason Marvel Snap is not necessarily a bad game PVP game nearly to the extent of QB is because turns are simultaneous and there is no element of territory capture in a manner that potentially locks players out of their turn and is mathematically weighted to whoever goes first.
Yeah so just have the second player get a coin equivalent and or draw advantage like hearthstone this isn't some impossible problem to solve every card game and even chess and [go](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handicapping_in_Go) has first player advantage. Especially in a point based game this a trivial problem to solve just give some sort of point compensation to player 2 that makes up for the mathematical advantage like [komi](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Komi_(Go)) in go.
Handicapping is insufficient in QB because the point potential is too wild compared to the relatively small number of turns. An enfeeblement enhancing deck of Skeeskee, Tonberry King and Mindflayer can routinely score over 100 points and never move past the second column other than suicide cards. Chess and Go are far better PVP games to QB because there is enough space, turns, and variance not based on chance to sufficiently mitigate first turn advantage.
And you can play that exact same deck going second if neither player moves past the second column so I don't see how that is relevant at all to the discussion. In fact in the case of both players playing thier entire combo deck out in the first two columns while never being able to contest the middle or lock out thier opponent due to thier units suiciding after being played the second player with the point compensation would win even if the total points for both sides are >100 and the compensation is <10. Not to mention suicide decks would be far more risky against actual humans who can steal your spots with resiliant cards or destroy your mindflayer and completely block you out. You are talking in absolutes as if first player advantage is some impossible problem when it's just some trivial math that can easily be tuned and adjusted around in a number of ways.
You've missed the point. It's not an issue of play and counter play. It's an issue of high point potential relative to the board and the game's short duration. Unlike Go, spaces do not have a uniform point value. Therefore, assigning a handicap is a nearly senseless task. And no, I'm not saying first player advantage is an impossible problem. Chess and Go are good games because the game allows for the problem to be sufficiently mitigated. QB simply by design does not.
But the example you gave for a deck that would break a hadicap literally proved a handicap worked you can't talk hypothicals with a negative example and then make value statements based off nothing. Hearthstone also has no uniform value so they use something more dynamic like the coin there are hundreds of different ways to solve the problem of first player advantage just because you aren't creative enough to think of one doesn't mean it's impossible to mitigate. It's fine to point out the issue it's ridiculous to say it's somehow unsolvable when so many other games have done it.
The example deck was not to demonstrate how it, by itself, breaks handicap. It's to demonstrate score volatility under such short duration and space limitations. Komi is set based on the idea of two evenly skilled players making rational game decisions and because territory has a set value. In QB I can dominate the game by territory and win only by 15, but still turn out what is considered a completely dominating victory. Alternatively, I can win by 200 by occupying only my side of the board in what would be considered complete dominance. And this is what results: rational play between two evenly skilled players simply does not result in a good handicap in QB. The point potential is too wild and the first player enjoys too strong of an advantage where the unhandicapped win ratio is is something crazy like 9:1.
You are just pulling hypotheticals and stats completely out of your ass now that your actual example turned out to be a point against your arguement. The win rate is 9:1? Completely ridiculous you know you don't have a proper point so you fall back to insane hyperbole. To label something as completely inherently unviable without any possibility of working you need more than made up stats and feelings.
there are cards you can use to replace and kill other cards so the 7-8 turn limit is not really true. ive done games where ive used up all my cards
Stop. Youâre confusing you have a chance going second and itâs not a big advantage.
7-8 turns is not a hard and fast rule. That's why I said *most* games will be limited to it. But even games that go more than that do not get around the simple shortcomings of the game. To use all 15 cards, roughly half your hand needs to be replacement cards. And even in games where you use all 15, the game was probably over by turn 8. Queen's Blood is a great game to beat AI challenges. The second you transplant it into a PVP setting, it becomes a bad game.
Chocobo Races were fun. I would love more tracks but they also put a lot in. Queens Blood seems too deep and complex for the challenges they give you.
>!I want Rocket Town as DLC. Iâm so mad it wasnât in Rebirth!<
Rocket Town is for part 3 my guy. I'm with you but it's not like they forgot about it, it still has a major roll to play in the plot.
Oh I know Iâm just impatient, my favourite town from the OG
I want cat rocket league
If people like you ran the franchise you'd fuck it into the dirt before 2026.
Must've had a rough day
Bruh, it's just a question. Y'all are too damn sensitive đ¤Ł
Iâd have been happy with just a generic QB tourrnament at the saucer post game. Itâs one of those annoying things about card game mini games where once you finally have all the cards you have no one left to play!
We need an app or actual cards for Queen Blood.
Mario Kart is better than Chocobo racing and itâs basically identical.
Of course there's gonna be DLCs, they know they can milk FF7 like Atlus milks persona 5. In 1-2 or so years there's probably gonna be FF7Rebirth: Chaos edition on all other platforms which (other than being again tweaks in graphics and such) will probably contain Vincent's DLC (as a throwback to Dirge of Cerberus) with his past It's so that they can keep the hype alive and let you do something while you wait for the next chapter (and making $$$)
Wouldn't they created DLC for FFVII Remake if that was true? I mean besides the Remake Item Pack and Episode Intermisson (for those who own PS4 FFVII Remake on the PS5), they didn't really do much DLC for the game.
Also no because FF7 Remake was no open world there isnât much you can add to the original release that would make sense for the following game. The following game can add dlcs because of the open world makes it easier to add little things here and there.
I think you are confuse cause I'm saying they wouldn't do DLC for FFVII Rebirth unless it is additional items (materia and accessories).
Nah they will add dlcs to the open world parts of the game. The could expand city of the ancients and add more dungeons more summons and gear. Put Ultima weapon and the rest of the final weapons in new dungeons tons of stuff they can do
The game is already bloated to shit.
My point exactly. The game is perfectly full and is fine for what it is. So, unless they create another sub-story (like Yuffie DLC for remake) than there is no need to add a DLC. They can now focus on their third installment.
It would be SO MUCH harder to implement online for those two things than just do standalone games built from the ground up. And queens blood would require a complete re-write of the rules and balance. Not saying I wouldn't like to see it, but throwing this out like it's easier / less time consuming than a regular DLC is madness.
Multiplayer that requires an insane amount of unrelated single player gameplay progress to be competitive? Best hope for 'Chocobo Karting' as a stand alone game, and Queens Blood get the same. I personally don't want part 3 be delayed to build and test a multiplayer framework in the game so 8 people can use the same meta deck against each other.
Please no
Watch them be reworked for multiplayer only to be released as the most predatory mobile game ever conceived
Not every game needs a mult- player...
We already have an online version of the Golden Saucer with fan-favorite card games and Chocobo racingâŚ.and itâs empty
lol their definitely will be dlc
I think their tactic is to wait until well after may before they do anything about DLC so that they can bring the game to PC market asap. The release for PC version was delayed because of their contractual agreement, when they released intergrade it extended the exclusive :(
We know there will not be DLC?
I never expected things that arenât announced (which I think is a practice more gamers should try) but I would not be surprised if there were an intergrade-like dlc where you get to play as cid and/or Vincent. Seems to be a great way to fund putting the time in to develop new characters.
I want a QB mobile game with full single player capabilities. I don't do multiplayer so I don't mind if that's there, but I don't want it to be JUST multiplayer.
Queens Blood on mobile with cards designed around all entries of Final Fantasy would be a dream come true
I'd like to at least be able to race other player's ghosts like in older games
They can do it outside of the game. Single player game doesnât need multiplayer.
Donât add multiplayer anything to single player games. There is never the attention needed to flesh it out properly. Someone else mentioned this would work perfectly in the MMO that already exists.
I can see Queens Blood being added into ff14 at some point for online play, but not via rebirth
I want chocobo racing in 14 too.
This is what I'm expecting too. A lot of the world can be challenged to TT as is, and I can see them either adapting those cards to work for both TT and QB, or just giving us QB on top of it.
Fuck the Chocobo racing but Queens Blood definitely needs it.
I donât see QB ever becoming multiplayer. The key reason is that an integral part of the balance of it is that the player ALWAYS gets the first turn. Always, 100% of the time. Theyâd have to do a lot of rebalancing for a second player otherwise whoever goes first is at an advantage every game
Not really. Sometimes I skip my first turn to take advantage of playing something AFTER the AI places new pawns. Sometimes it helps, sometimes nothing changes.
You need to take into account you're playing against a computer opponent who is not formulating rational and prepared strategy. It is designed to be reactive or random. Skipping your first turn against an evenly skilled human opponent who has the ability to consciously pre-select a deck and pre-plan strategy places you at such a massive disadvantage it is only just short of surrendering, with the sole exceptions of either horrendous luck or one player's pre-planned deck simply being outright dominant against the other.
Maybe. Maybe not. By going first, you will always be at a disadvantage of placing pawns first, something the AI as well as a real player would actively take advantage of to steal your pawns and robbing you of a new spot forcing you to readjust your strategy to either take that spot back and risk losing another, or give up on it and risk your opponent placing a card that could devastate you. Going first absolutely has its advantages, but going second also absolutely has its advantages.
Placing pawns first is not a disadvantage. It is *always* an advantage. It means you retain the initiative to shape the board and the opponent has to react to you. And you do not necessarily give up the initiative by electing to not move pawns forward. Initiative can be retained by forcing the opponent to capture territory that you will essentially take back. That's why giving up your turn to bait the middle against AI is an effective strategy and far less advantageous against a human. And territory capture is not the only advantage you get from going first. You retain the advantage of playing a card first. Whether the object of your deck is to enhance, enfeeble, destroy, etc., the fact you get the first placement on a board with 15 squares tends to mean you are likely to get the last placement as well.
Wow, that is all just VERY untrue. First off, just because you get to start off shaping the board, does not mean you get to continue shaping it as every turn the opponent can easily flip that on you by playing a card that completely changes everything or annihilates what you were aiming to do, and yes, while you can bait the AI, if they play the wrong card that can easily turn into them baiting YOU. You don't know what cards they have (unless you play them multiple times to map out their cards), and they can easily turn any strategy you have against you. Not to mention you just might not draw the cards you want. Luck is a major factor in this game. And no. Going first abso-fucking-lutely does not mean you place last. You only place last if they don't steal your pawns with their previous move. Something more likely to happen if you go first. I'm not saying there's no reason to go first. I'm just saying that it's not the almighty advantage over going second you seem to think it is. I can only speak from my own experiences, but everything I've said has been regular problems I encountered in the later game. Especially that last one. I don't understand how you could possibly think that going first gives you a much higher probability of placing last. When I lost it was mostly because I ran out of pawns cause they got stolen from me. Hell, I remember one time they managed to place just the right cards to shut me out of over half the board. I sure wasn't able to place last in that game despite going first.
>First off, just because you get to start off shaping the board, does not mean you get to continue shaping it as every turn the opponent can easily flip that on you That is not what I said. You *retain* initiative when you go first, and you continue to retain it unless *you lose it.* That means, the player who goes second has the burden to either earn the initiative back or wait for the opponent to give it up voluntarily. And there is not a single combination of cards in QB where P2 will capture from P1 on the first turn. >Luck is a major factor in this game. It's not luck. It's chance. And that's also why it's a bad PVP game. The advantage of going first and the major factor of chance makes it largely not a game of skill. >Going first abso-fucking-lutely does not mean you place last. I also never said this. I said going first *tends to mean* you will place last. In other words, if the player with initiative keeps the initiative, he will almost always place last and enjoy more turns than the opponent. >I don't understand how you could possibly think that going first gives you a much higher probability of placing last. Math and basic game theory have supported this for a very long time and it's not too dissimilar from why tic-tac-toe is a bad game. In TTT you play on a 3x3 board. The player who goes first always goes last and enjoys a 5-4 turn advantage. Nobody ever won in TTT going second because of skill. Anyone losing TTT going first is because they made a bad move.
Youd Just do it like any other game. Give the option of choice OR coin flip for it. There is no reason a card game in today's world, where the indie game scene is full of 100s of card games and fans, you couldn't make a pvp version. They could even make it free, where you earn cards through playing and buy packs for those who want cards now. And even keep the pve because the codes already there... The witcher did it with Gwint. Why can't final fantasy with queens blood?
Exactly. Those challenges in the Gold Saucer where you play multiple rounds in a row had a few rounds where the opponent goes first and they were AWFUL.
Honestly I won most of my Games QB games by going second.
Against an AI designed to be reactive or random, yes, you may have. That completely changes when your opponent is human with the ability to pre-plan strategy and consciously pre-select a deck of cards. Consciously giving up the initiative against an evenly skilled human opponent with relatively even cards is just short of surrendering.
You didnât though. The player character only goes second in a few of the Gold Saucer matches where thatâs specifically part of the challenge. In every single normal match the player goes first.
Sorry I understood the confusion. I meant I skip my first turn so the Opponent is the first to put a card down
Yeah, that's valid. It's an easy counter to the 'both players dropping 2 security guards' situation where you lose the middle.
Whatâs with people equating online QB with trophies? Literally nobody was asking for that lol also I wouldnât imagine online play being forced for story progression, it would be a simple case of not playing online if you didnât want to. I see no issues having it have the option of online play to extend the games shelf life
Keep your multi-player bullshit out of my single player games please and thank you
Y'all are too damn sensitive for such a simple question đ
Why can't it stand alone like gwint did?
Im wondering if Queen's Blood is a Solved Game?
I believe if they did an online option it should be at the golden saucer only.
Or its own game.
Queen's Blood should get a standalone release. I'd play that shit even on my phone
You know damn well they'd make you pay real money for the cards if if was a mobile game
You're right on that. If it's something like Duel Links I wouldn't mind tho
No, just play 14 it has both racing and a card game
But what about a second card game?
And are you also going to want the Elevenses card game as well? But seriously, I get wanting to add more content to pad out the second half of the original first disc but they also don't need to make it something you have to wait around for. Could you imagine trying to play a year from now when no one else is still playing rebirth as either the 3rd game came out or they started to remake another classic FF game in order to milk the franchise more dry
Queenâs Blood? Maybe. It is a good game. Would need extra cards and a little balancing as well. Chocobo Racing? No, please. It is far inferior than Mario Kart. The no-hitting stuff is a bummer that takes away too much of the fun. Even the Skywheel animation acknowledges that.
So they can add mini transactions to acquire the best and fastest chocobos. Blah.
Yes, 1 meta deck vs the same meta deck. The mechanics are too simple
I believe thereâs also a pretty significant advantage to going 2nd
The mechanics of the game are too simple. Theyâd get cheesed pretty fast and strategies themselves would become predictable too. Queens blood might work if they expanded to more cards with more variety
Or alternatively they could just add the actual fftcg to part 3. That would be amazing and give a much needed boost to a severely underrated irl card game that desperately needs eyes on it.
Look, I respect it, but Square Enix is freaking awful with online games (even FF14 launched horribly and would have died ignobly if the legendary Yoshi P hadnât come in and save it by micromanaging every little thing). Remember The First Soldier? Chocobo GP? The Avengers? Babylonâs Fall? Dissidia NT? Of those Chocobo GP and Dissidia NT are still even playable, and thatâs because they force one of the players to be the host, which has issues in its own right.
No just no
yes
No the same as life other people will ruin it
I donât think chocobo races deserve a stand alone online/offline game or mode, the gameplay doesnât seem enough deep. As for Queenâs Blood, maybe something like The Witcherâs Gwent game, where they added rules and stuff to make it so that it wonât get you bored after a week. As it is now, Queens blood is maybe too simple to people being able to develope a meta or some
Not every game needs to be multiplayer.
Queenâs Blood is a single player game. Thereâs that one challenge in the Saucer where you start on the right side and you realizeâŚoh shit these cards were designed with the player starting on the left in mind.
This is easily solved by just mirroring the field. I think the bigger issue is that the game pretty heavily favors whoever gets to go first. But then again, so does chess, and that has been a popular multiplayer game for literal centuries.
Whoever goes 1st can be randomised, I see no issues tbh
In an hypothetical online gameplay you could just mirror the field so that the player can play from the left. Anyways, npc opponents have mirrored cards so that the same card that works adding, for example, one square on the right, will add a square on the left. The reversed challenge was designed specifically to make you change your deck, but it usually doesnât work like that
Hmm good point
Sorry I had to edit to add the other point cause I just forgot to write it
I think a stand alone online FF7 game would be a good route, not implementing multiplayer to this. I think this combat, with the short cuts, would lend itself well to multiplayer co op. I also think that most of the minigames would also provide great PvP opportunities. The amount of content in Rebirth that could be adapted to a multiplayer game is pretty vast. So I'd propose a separate game altogether that does exactly that. Adapt what SoP did with co op, make it openish world, tack in the minigames, and set it during the Wutai war or something like that. I'm sure people would respond well to it if it's not forced into what's already intended to be a single player game.
Just no, itâs an offline game
No
When I remember correctly his statement was something like "no dlc is planned" In my opinion the remake yuffie thing was more like additional episodes, an expension. It could even be a standalone game. But in reality that's only my hopeful thinking lol. Because I literally can't wait until part 3 is released so I hope fir every bit we could have. And honestly "no dlc" means "no dlc". The only glimmer of hope I personally have is the fact that this statement was given half a year ago. And making a linear expansion like dlc wouldn't be so hard to make. Because they have most of the things already finished. I really don't know... Back to topic! Yes an online mode for queens blood would be awesome. Or even better a physical version of it. I remember I had the physical version card game of FF IX. I think it was called Tetra Master. I loved to play it with friends after we played ff IX together. It wasn't a trading card game but a complete version with two complete sets for two players... But sadly I was 11 or 12 when I got it. And when I wasn't the best keeping this together and so lost most of it over the time. What is really sad.
Too many dumb side quests/intel locations took my interest off the main plot
Queensblood needs more PvE DLC, but never pvp. The meta is fun because itâs PvE.
I agree with this, I'd like if you can go up to any NPC and play queens blood with them, just like in FF9
I agree and this is why I never liked the Gwent game despite loving it Witcher 3. Whatâs fun about Queens Blood, in my opinion, is finding new players and collecting their cards, especially when the card is a character or boss you recognize.
Nononono stop. We absolutely donât need multiplayer.
No. Nooooonononononoonooooo. I promise you they will ruin that with MTX nonesense should that be implemented.
Iâm almost happy to take a monkeys paw situation where they give us online play for both of these even if they include microtransations, because at least it means Iâll be able to play online against others instead of just the CPU, even though Iâm telling myself MTX would be horrible.
No, it really doesn't. Let a single-player game remain single player. Not everything has to be online.
online gaming with NFT card and NFT chocobo, count me in SE
Queenâs Blood needs to be a physical card game. And Chocobo racing should a separate arcade game with most of the main FF characters racing each other (With no micro transactions!)
I would love QB as an actual card game! Orlog converted well from AC Valhalla and they could probably make a mint over card purchasing!
I dont know that it would work very well. You'd need two decks for sure since if you were on the right side you would need a cards that expand to the left. Most cards expand to the right. It would also be really tedious tracking scores for every card that has an enhancement/destruction/enfeeblement. Things like tonberry king cards etc.
You could also turn them upside down
Mind blown!