Experimenting with P2W

Of course there are Legendary items that I would like to have. However, as it's been pointed out I would most likely have to build the entire deck, if not the entire party, around those legendary items. My play style is quite different than other players and that is evident by the fact that I almost never use Priests. When I first started playing I built really overpowered priest trio decks that drew amazing number of cards (the strategies I used are still viable, unlike many that no longer work, aka: Martyrs Blessing + attacking friendlies, Talented Healer + Holy Breastplate, etc.). The Priests have had the most nerfing do those crazy strategy which enabled them to draw ridiculous amounts of cards. All that being said, even if I had a complete selection I would still use some common/uncommon items guaranteed.

 

Win-loss records for your regular account and test accounts.

 

Here is a break down of some of the builds I've made and their corresponding win percentages.

75% With unlisted builds. After four matches I can generally determine how to change or if a build it worth tweaking. So, these unlisted builds make up a small fraction of my ranked matches.
94% Over 300 battles, encumber. http://www.cardhunter.com/forum/threads/mp-builds.1773/#post-21987
90% Around 10 battles, unknown (the decks are just fun). http://www.cardhunter.com/forum/threads/mp-builds.1773/page-2#post-23727
95% Around 40 battles, smoke/volcano. http://www.cardhunter.com/forum/threads/mp-builds.1773/page-2#post-27635
Overall actual account record 92% wins.

90% With unlisted builds.
85% Around 20 battles, uses high mobility with decent damage and light healing (not enough damage). http://www.cardhunter.com/forum/threads/mp-builds.1773/page-2#post-24863
65% Around 20 battles, uses high mobility with decent damage, concentrating on nimble strike and other hybrid move cards (not enough buffs). http://www.cardhunter.com/forum/threads/experimenting-with-p2w.2441/
85% Around 20 battles, uses high mobility with high damage coupled with decent buff and draw support (not enough decent blocks). http://www.cardhunter.com/forum/threads/experimenting-with-p2w.2441/#post-26005
Test account overall record 85% wins. (Although, technically I have around a 50% win record on my test account. This is due to the fact that I threw games to keep my record low.)

Edited: Now, contains estimated number of battles, and success reason.

 

90%+ win rates is pretty impressive. What's the sample size of these compositions? You said after about 4 matches you can tell what needs to be adjusted, and I wonder why you feel these decks have been as successful as they have been.

 

No idea why you claim this game isn't pay 2 win when you have pretty much the best cards in the game as far as MP goes. Like I suspected, your 94% win rate encumber deck has overpowered commons or cards with too low of an orb cost in it. Here they are:

http://wiki.cardhuntria.com/wiki/Items/Blocking_Mace <--- Good enough to be an epic.
http://wiki.cardhuntria.com/wiki/Items/Solid_Rock <--- Good enough to be rare.
http://wiki.cardhuntria.com/wiki/Items/Frosty_Staff <--- This should cost two yellow orbs. A lot of people abuse this item.
http://wiki.cardhuntria.com/wiki/Items/Electroporter_Novice <--- One of the only skill items in the game without an orb cost yet contains nothing but traits. Either the card should be nerfed or it should cost one blue.
http://wiki.cardhuntria.com/wiki/Items/Dueler's_Buckler <--- For a common item this one is just insane. Both the parry and unreliable block should be turned into flimsy or weak blocks. All around this item is OP.
http://wiki.cardhuntria.com/wiki/Items/Purple_Cloak <--- I see you were using this OP item before it got nerfed. I know I was abusing it too. For those who don't know the hot spot on this item used to be whirlwind enemies.
http://wiki.cardhuntria.com/wiki/Items/Burning_Bangle <--- Should have one less hotspot.

Additionally, your deck has some ridiculous rares that would take most players 40+ hours to find. Come on man. How realistic is it to suppose that a guy who works 40-60 hours per week will have the time to play the game so hardcore? He will need to pay if he wants to be competitive.

 

If he has the "pretty much the best cards in the game" then so do I (without having paid anything for them), and I must be doing something wrong because I'm not using a single one of them. Not sure why you have such a problem with them. They are common for a reason.

You've managed to get >1000 ranking so I'd be curious as to how many of these same items you're still using since you feel they are so great.

Common - I've got 3 of these. And they aren't really great if you are out to do damage.

Common - I've got two of these as well. Don't even use them on my dwarf. Not sure why you feel it's so good.

Rare - yet I still have one. Sure it gets used (not by me), but that should tell you that people DO actually get it.

Uncommon - I've got 3 of these. Certainly decent. Don't use it though.

Common - I've got 6. Sure it's decent as well, but why scream nerf if everyone can get access to them? It's a general good choice for a block based shield. I'd take a flimsy or weak block over the unreliable block any day. That would only make it more usable.

Common - I have 2. We've talked a bit about this. Panic button not OP for me, but can see why you might think it is without the need for a power token.

Common - I have two of these as well. So that one "extra" hot spot makes it one of the best MP cards?

To get exactly those rares, sure it would take a while. To get their fair share of random rares... Same time as everyone else. Sure paying for them gets you them without having to play through the game. Working 40-60 hours a week and wants to be competitive at a game? Yeah, he'll have to spend the time and/or the money to get the items (and skill) to do so.

Give these same purchased decks to new players, ignoring the fact that they would have to identify how to put the decks together as well, and see how high they rank. Would they win their first few games? Sure, most likely at the lower rankings they will have an advantage should they figure out how to play it. After their rankings get bumped up though, they are going to be on much more common ground and will fall back roughly into the 50% win ratios just like everyone else. Lance has high win ratios largely because of his skill level.

 

First of all, whether or not you have these items is immaterial. Just because everyone has access to an item doesn't mean the item isn't OP. My original assertion to Lance (on page two) was that this game was pay to win. He then replied that he's using lots of commons and uncommons, to which I replied that he was using OP common or uncommon.

Thus the point of my post above was to highlight which items he was using that were OP. Now let's talk about the items in detail.

Blocking Mace is superior because it has as much block as most shields do and more damage than 70% of the attack items out there. 14 7 11 = 32 dmg. Parry's increase deck efficiency when you position your warrior properly, making them one of the best blocks for PvP in the entire game, while unreliable block is really the only "weak" card but it's not that weak because you can always get lucky.

Solid rock contains 3 of the best cards for MP. Specifically, parry is useful if you get rushed by a warrior, toughness is amazing, and immovable being a trait promotes deck efficiency and protects against the almighty whirlwind enemies/whirlwind/winds of war attacks, and bashes. This allows the dwarf to camp the point while flinging his encumber spells. Solid rock is one of the best MP dwarf skill items I've seen.

Frosty staff needs it's cost increased or needs to be nerfed by reducing the amount of encumbers on it. For it's orb cost, what it gives is criminal.

Electroporter novice is too good. 3 traits means 3 less cards in your overall deck, and if you've got the spark cards to use then it's clearly the best choice because it has no orb cost.

Dueler's Buckler may as well be renamed to the PvP shield. For no orb cost you get 2 amazing blocks and 1 subpar one. That's a better deal than any other common shield, making this shield the best common shield in the game. Although you may think parries aren't everything because they do not block spells, the fact is that spells do not hit very hard and shimmering armor is plentiful on many items. Thus Buckler should be have it's rarity rating increased, at a minimum.

As for whirlwind enemies being OP on purple cloak - dude, all you have to do is wait for them to move on the point then you can get them off. On top of it with a proper encumber build they can be frozen again once they're off the point making it impossible for them to win.

Burning bangle is OP - do you know of any other common items with two hot spots, one of the strongest wizard spells in the game?

No. Give this deck to a new player and they will steamroll to 1000 elo immediately. They may lose until they understand the mechanics of this game properly, but once they figure it out their win rate will soar up to 70-80% because they are using an OP build. They may not be as good as Lance, but skill plays less of a role in this game than card quality and luck draws do.

 

I'm not going to get into the merits of the items you singled out as, "OP." Many players cry, "OP" when most of the time that is simply not the case. But if you recall my original reason for bringing up common and uncommon rarity was in actually in response to the following post by Nirvana:

Balancing items is an extremely difficult process that is still underway. So, if you feel an item is unfair I advise starting a separate thread about it.

Additionally, I work full time 40+ hours and for the past few months play maybe three ranked matches, maybe. That has not always been the case, but with effort and time any player can advance. I think you place to high a value on what you view as, "OP" items.

There seem to be a substantial number of cards which you consider to be, "the best cards for MP." I've said it before and I'll say it again, "Card Hunter is extremely situational." When you start singling out cards like, Parry you make the mistake that that card may be entirely useless in combat. Against my current party where +95% of the time I don't make a single melee attack Parry is a dead card. Which leads me to my understanding that, "many players cry, "OP" when most of the time that is simply not the case."

 

Okay, so if it's immaterial if I have the items without purchasing them, and he has them by purchasing them, how does this support your P2W viewpoint?

Just like giving a starter deck to any new player with any tactical talent. Even then, is 1000 elo "Winning"? Did they just BUY themselves into a better position than any other player in the game? How have they paid to "win" here?

...and this is what it comes down to. I totally disagree. If that were the case Lance would not win as much as he does and arguably, I wouldn't lose as much as I do.

 

Exactly. Card Hunter is about situational awareness. Thus the best cards for MP are the cards which grant the most use in the majority of situations. Right now there exist cards which can hit for 14-17 dmg, and that's without buffs. Only melee cards have this much power, which means cards that counter melee have the most utility. Parry is one of the strongest melee blocks in the game, if not the strongest, so it's clear why parry is such a good card.

Just because you have a deck which works around some OP cards means nothing. You're a good player who is one step ahead of the meta so you skew things by using card combinations most players will not think of, but it does not mean that OP cards are not OP. You gotta think terms of percentages; how useful will this card be compared to another card out of 100 different situations? Some cards are useful around 80% of the time (like resistant hide; that's another OP item that I also abuse) while other cards are only useful in 20% (like unreliable block) or 10% (like flimsy block).

 

Because ideally, once those cards are balanced, then it will be a matter of finding the best legendaries.

Now, if Blue Manchu wants to avoid any sort of Pay 2 Win entirely, they can leave in the OP commons, uncommons, and rares. However, I doubt this will stay this way because if Blue Manchu wants to have a more profitable business model, then they must keep the best cards epic and legendary.

Earlier in this thread, Lance showed how he got many extra legendaries and epics by paying, which shows that the game is setup right now to be pay 2 win (although not entirely - maybe just around 50-60%).

Considering 1000 elo is already above more than 50%, I'd say it's not bad. That's definitely a buy 2 win case. The difference is, I don't mind that the game is pay 2 win because the game is also free 2 play, which means the only way to make sales is by saying to the player - "if you want to be competitive, then you need to buy the game."

Just keep practicing. The range of best available moves at any one given time is much smaller than you think. This game is certainly less challenging than chess. By far and away the most challenge to Card Hunter right now is having "game sense" - trying to understand what kind of deck your opponent is playing after you see them make their first few moves. Card Hunter is much more like poker than it is strategy like chess.

 

Where are you getting these number?

Maybe I am just dense, but I don't see how anything that I've posted proves Card Hunter is pay to win.

I'm an avid chess player, and once again, I fail to see what you clam to be true. The variables in Card Hunter present to me much more of a challenge then a game of Chess. Chess is much more simple in nature. The challenge generally comes from your opponent, not the game itself. And while both are board games the similarities seem to stop there.

I do feel this thread getting further from the topic which was my experimentation with, pay to win. Having available every item will clearly give an advantage over having a limited selection. However, skill and knowledge are required to build decks and subsequently play them (to their full potential). This game is just as much about building decks as playing them, or at least that it the hope.

Paying actually money to obtain items is possible. But that does not equate to the game being pay to win. I'm not sure how to illustrate that any better than I have up to this point. So, I will let my words stand.

 

Where were the extra legendary items? His batches show 10-11 legendary. That's exactly the same amount I have. Even if he had double the legendary items that doesn't say to me that it is in any way

In fact, the fact that neither Lance, nor I use legendary items (just using him as one of the top players and me as a mediocre player (at 1200-1300 rating generally)) I think shows it's not about how many legendary items you can buy.

Okay, perhaps it's simply your definition of P2W that I don't agree with then. Buying items and being able to use skill to build and play your deck to be above 50% of the player base (it's much higher than that due to the number of players who never play more than 3-4 games, but I'll just use your seemingly made up number) to me is a baseline as to where to START playing the game, not an "I'm winning" type of milestone.

But why when, as you are suggesting, I can just uses OP commons and uncommons and buy items I should just win right? Or do I need to buy legendaries that makes me just win games?

Um, CH has FAR more variables to consider than chess with "best" moves being not only subjective, but far larger in number than in chess.

Again, it may just be the definition of your version of P2W. Perhaps you think your view of it being P2W is the reason you don't have a higher ranking because other people are buying chests and you aren't? I don't know. While you think this thread obviously proves the game is P2W, I see it as showing that it's not.

 

They are estimates. For example, unreliable block can works 1/6 times, so it's 20%. This is actually too high a number, because I forgot that blocks do not work unless you are facing your opponent. Thus unreliable block is less useful than just a dice roll, so it's usefulness percentage is actually lower around 10-15%.

Likewise, resistant hide is always useful no matter the situation you are in, so we can estimate the situations it will be useful in at a much higher percentage. Against other wizards, the hide is OP, and even against warriors it provides some damage mitigation. Is it better than every card in every situation? Of course not, but given it's wide range of use it's no surprise that I've seen every wizard carry a resistant hide. The only times resistant hide isn't as useful is when you're fighting a pure melee team and you may not want armor since they hit for so hard armor barely matters. It would be better to have something like force cone or winds of war against a melee team. Thus we can estimate resistant hide will be useful in 60-70% of situations and given it's free orb cost that's OP. (I originally said 80% - too high an estimate).

Chess involves tens of thousands of complex variables that must be accounted for on the fly. Card Hunter relies on odds and luck of the draw to determine the winner. The more skilled opponent will always win in chess, but the same is not true in Card Hunter because some gear is superior than others and it is impossible to draw a good hand every time since power orb requirements ensure every deck has weak cards. Chess is 100% skill and 0% luck whereas Card Hunter is more 50%/50%.

You've shown in this thread that those who pay for premium services get substantially better loot, and since having more items mean more deck building possibilities it follows that this game is pay 2 win like every other CCG I've played. While it is true that many easy to obtain (does anyone actually know what the drop percentages for these cards are?) items are OP because they outclass other cards in their league, that does not mean that anyone can simply get these cards and win. They will still need plenty of Epics and Rares in order to be competitive, which they can substantially increase the odds of obtaining by paying a small fee.

That said, everything I've said about pay 2 win only applies to multiplayer. Single player does not have anything close to a pay 2 win model.

 

Blindsight, here's a simple challenge to refute you.

What percentage of top 50 players (1300+) haven't paid? Can you even name one player who hasn't paid for anything and is above 1500 elo?

 

Can you come up with a more slanted question? Can you name even one who you know has? Guess at numbers and percentages all you want, you, nor I, have any way of knowing. I know of at least 2 in the top 50 (counting myself here since I was in the top 50 before really starting to test stuff) that had not paid for anything to get there.

Again, pretty unfair question. Luckily it's a well known answer. Lance.

 

For starters 1/6 equals 16.7%, which is the probability that an unreliable block will successfully trigger. The amount of adjacent squares in open terrain are 8, with 5 of those squares allowing the use of blocks in response to an opponents attack. A 5/8 ratio equals 62.5%. So, an unreliable block is effective static 10.417% of the time. That number changes when you account for variables like starting position and the fact that characters face their opponents the majority of the time.

I'm not sure you can really make the claim that, "Resistant Hide is always useful no matter the situation you are in." Just off the top of my head I can think of Touch Of Death, where not only is it not useful, it is in fact detrimental. I do though feel that you may need to define what you mean when you say, "OP." Because it appears that you would contend that something which I consider simply to be, "good" is actually according to your definition, "OP." If it is indeed, "OP" then the card needs to be looked at and the game adjusted accordingly. Otherwise, your just flagrantly calling things, "OP."

Yes, chess has many complexities. Although, they come nowhere near the quantity that Card Hunter contains. But this has nothing to do with the game being pay to win or not.

I just started counting my collection, I gave up after 1,200. In total I have well over 3,000 items (my estimate is 3800 items in total). Opening 25 epic chests which total just under $100.00 worth of items, will give you a collection of a mere 125 items. So, you said, "since having more items mean more deck building possibilities it follows that this game is pay 2 win." Do you really believe more items means you will win verses someone who has items? Because, then someone who plays and manages to win only 6 games a day for one week will have a larger collection than the person who spends $100.00 on Epic chests. Which supports skip_intro's following post:

Now, I do feel I need to clarify that I am a club member and have purchased the Treasure Hunts. So, I have, "paid for something." I did so to support Card Hunter and the guys at Blue Manchu. I have not spent any pizza on chests specifically. Which is evident by the 1420 Pizza Slices I currently have. However, there are many I could name who have not even done that.

 

If you think it that way... For year or few, most of the top ranked players will have paid money. After that, no amount of money (reasonable anyway) can get you the options or variety of a f2p player that has actively played for a while.

Then again, it has nothing to do with p2w... There's no extra rewards and single matches are still balanced by MM, meaning that those players will face each other most of the time.

 

Honestly this does not fall under my definition of pay2win, it's more like play to win where investing time will give you much greater results then investing money.
But though paying gives advantage of more items, and more chance to better items, just playing easily pulls you to the same level.
and this is my definition of pay2win, a game where paying gives a form of unfair advantage, and this is in no way it, the advantages given to paying customers are in no way unfair.
and honestly I find myself losing more to regular players then to paid players :<
1100-1200 free player
so I don't see any real solid ground under forelorn arguments as I've read them all, but I don't feel like refering to his arguments 1 by 1 since it will take too long and he seems too convinced that he is right. to be told otherwise

 

I've never paid any money and I got to 1000 elo very quickly; it only takes about half a dozen wins against Gary. (I wonder how many of that 50% don't have their free starter deck yet.) I haven't been able to get past that because I'm horrible at the metagame and am basically relying on whatever items look most powerful.