Game informer's Red Flags.

That might not have been as cheerful a sign-off as you intended.

Anyway, it looks like Card Hunter doesn't really fall into the traps listed at the outset. Consider: is "having one of these elements" equal to "avoid this game at all costs"? Or is it the terrifying combination of elements which some games have done that raises concern?

I think having more than one currency looks silly. If done badly, you have complete trash. But I don't think Card Hunter is trash.

I think "games having rules" is standard operating procedure. So you can't replay this mission for awhile: you are now channeled into playing the rest of the game. Having reasons to enrich your own play experience is a good thing, not a bad thing.

Now, consider how other games have combined these: suppose gameplay weren't so much "channeled" by limits, but rather it were actually halted. Say, halted by some "energy system," where you could spend a real-world-based second currency to get more "energy." I believe I've already expressed my attitude there:

People can waste their money on that trash if they want. Fortunately, again, I don't think Card Hunter is trash.

 

It was meant in a competitive but good natured way.

As far as the energy system goes probably the biggest killer of decent to great games i have ever encountered.

 

That brings to mind Everquest 2's crafting system and rested exp boost. I always hated having to wait to craft because I had used all the boost already. One of the reasons I stopped playing.

 

Do I think it might scare away *some* potential players? yes. but then again so might a change to a subscription based model, the only other realistic form of revenue.

I'm not sure if #1 applies unless you can pay to get around the time gate. Many online games have a limit to certain content, an example would be the weekly raid reset in World of Warcraft. I think the keyword is "certain" though, as there is a big difference between not being able to play some of the content and not being able to play all the content once you have reached the "time-gate." I haven't played Card Hunter yet (hopefully I get in the beta soon as i am dying to play it) so I don't know how significant this is. If there are quite a few dungeons to do then I would probably not consider it to be an issue at all.

 

I don't mind the cooldowns on dungeons. I see this as a challenge not a limitation.

That being said i think it should be possible to ALWAYS play a dungeon that makes sense for your level. Perhaps completing a dungeon should lower cooldown on other dungeons? I really wouldn't want to end up with no dungeons to visit at all.. I guess it depends on the amount of cooldown..

Hmmm i forgot the aspect of pvp here... Wonder what the rewards for pvp are... Would be cool with a "ante" system, where you play to plunder cards from opponents deck..! (off topic much?)

 

It is designed so that you can "ALWAYS play a dungeon that makes sense for your level":

This is, of course, only valid if you ran one party at a time: if you had two parties active of similar levels, then you could "end up with no dungeons to visit at all." However, this is also handled in the design: because new characters (beyond the first party) cost gold to hire, the original party will be somewhere off in the leveling sequence by the time a new player ever hires a second party.

And then a really advanced player with multiple parties will have lots of adventures unlocked all over the place, meaning lots of options.

By the way: rewards when facing another player are the same as beating adventure battles (random loot). There's some variety to keep you coming back for more wins, but adventures have that same variety too.

 

Thanks for the little heads up.