Acquiring Items

Card Hunter appears to be both a single player game and a multiplayer game. I'm curious about players needing to play a specific way; could a player just play multiplayer games? You don't need to level up your characters for multiplayer, but how would you obtain items?

Right now it sounds like you have to play the single player campaigns to obtain your items. Leveling up your characters in order play higher level modules which grant stronger items. I'm assuming once your party reaches a high level, you could than replay high level modules in order to obtain more "Epic" loot.

So, if a player wanted to jump into your game for the multiplayer, will they first need to work their way through the single player campaign? Are there any other ways to obtain items? For examples; random boosters or by playing mulitplayer games?

 

I'm not 100% on this, but I'm pretty sure you'll need to play through the single-player experience, and grab yourself some phat loot, before you take to the multiplayer battlefield. We don't know too much about how Blue Manchu intends to make money off of this game, so boosters is something that could happen. How I see the multiplayer though, is sort of end-game content. You play the campaign to deck out your... deck, and then you test it against what others have come up with. I feel like the modules are sort of like booster packs in and of themselves. Each time you play through you have a chance to get new cards which would be awesome, or not so awesome. What makes this exciting is the opening of your booster pack in Card Hunter takes skill, and is (arguably) much more fun than simply opening up an actual booster pack.

 

I can't remember where at this moment, but at one point Jon said something like "I'll explain de-leveling later," and hasn't yet to my knowledge. But the character outfitting with paper doll and talents seems like it would be easy to roll back to an earlier level and replay the low level dungeons as well as the final tier. Since you will need some gear with lesser talent costs, you will probably want to obtain a wide selection at all power levels. But yes, the multi-player matches seem to be end stage content for now. I believe Blue Manchu is trying to steer people through the single-player campaign so they can introduce new card effects and strategies at a controlled pace. The (variety leading to) complexity of many CCG's is a psychological barrier to entry and a bit of hand-holding could help to expand the potential player base. I think it's a pretty obvious opportunity to sell at least some gear for cold hard cash -- which seems to be in the form of pizza, so maybe I should say steaming melty cash.

 

The matter is potentially complicated, and I bet a bunch is tied up with "We here at Blue Manchu are still figuring out our payment model."

Consider: all new players could use a formal introduction and deck-build-up period. But is that a good thing or a bad thing? Consider how many players WANT to jump straight into player vs. player without wasting time on this thing called "story" and "exploring a fantasy world." I'm . . . exaggerating for comedic purposes, but you know folks love multiplayer, so how will these people feel if they must complete the WHOLE campaign before multiplayer play?

Maybe they don't. Maybe, in the final version, all players will be able to do all play modes, and it'll be up to them to decide how much time to spend earning cards in single player.

But then, perhaps having a long campaign to build up one's deck is good, because this way building your deck is FUN. Another online card game, Cardmaster Conflict, has been around long enough for complaints to build about the challenges of starting as a new player. Many players will say that you must be handed freebies, and shortcuts, and anything you can get in your grubby little hands, just to get your basic cards and be fractionally competitive. After all, everyone else in multiplayer has 10 copies each of the best possible cards.

So, in the end, an enforced campaign THAT'S FUN could be essential. Suppose you lost your account and had to start anew: all your friends have 10 copies each of the best possible cards, so how are you going to get back in the race? Ugh, such a senseless grind! Unless . . . the campaign is fast, and fun, and a good source of cards.

And then there's the other "unless": unless Blue Manchu allows you to buy your way past the campaign by direct card purchase. Do they? They're not saying quite yet.

(And then there's the final "unless": the one from "The Lorax.")

 

Have you thought about a tiered competitive multiplayer system? I know that makes things more complex, but it might solve a lot of issues. You can give XP and loot for winning or even participation. That gives an XP and item income for newer players that don't want to do single player. Then once they level up they can unlock access to a higher tier of multiplayer. You could give the option choose to keep competing the lower level or levels.
Pros:

• You can normalize characters at different levels.
• Give XP and item rewards for PvP play.
• Low amount of single player play needed in order to get to multiplayer play.
• Offers variety to multiplayer play due to limited choices at lower tiers.

Cons:

• Could cause issues with single player progression.
• Creates divides or gates in the PvP community. Higher level players could be normalized down, but taking lower players up would be difficult if they don't have the proper equipment.

I am sure there are many more pros and cons to this, just my $.02.

 

I appreciate the response. I felt bad posting this after reading your dev diary on your past with multiplayer.

I feel that at this point there's a minimum expected feature set for competitive on-line multiplayer.

1) A system for rating players (CCGs needed to do this as well)
2) A system for matching players based on ratings (creates the best play experience)
3) A reward system for time spent playing (whether that time is multiplayer or single player)

Other online games limit how much you can get from certain play types. League of Legends, for example, limits how much you can earn from bot matches each day. This reinforces the priories for their game, in this case they want people playing each other. This insures there are lots of active players looking for games. I wouldn't argue it's a better model, but I think it works well for their game.

So, I don't really think it's bad if a different type of game favors single player. It's just going against a lot of expectations that popular free 2 play games have been settting.

Either way your team is bound to run into a situation where you have 2 play bases, single and multiplayer. Single player is going to want more single player campaigns and modules. Multiplayer will want tournaments, balance, and an evolving metagame. It will be interesting to see if you can find a model to support both.

 

I feel like if this game takes off they won't have any problem catering to both sides of the issue, and to those of us who fit into both crowds. If it starts off a little rocky, which I of course have no expectation of, then maybe they'll have to focus on one people group's tastes. It seems like Jon is all about the single player, which is totally cool, so if they have enough of a player-base to survive off of that kind of mindset I feel like that's the portion that will get attention. At the same time however, if enough the community is screaming their heads off for a greater focus on multi-player, tournaments, balance, and evolving the metagame like you said, I don't think they'll be able to ignore us. We just have to be vocal about what we want, which we'll get the opportunity to do when the game's beta rolls around.

 

Speaking of which . . .

https://twitter.com/BlueManchuGames/status/243461118754975744

To quote: "Co-op was the most asked for feature at PAX so we're shifting it up the priority list." That's a twist, isn't it? Suppose we get to the release date and the play base has two choices, single player and co-op, but NOT competitive. Is co-op just another way to play campaign mode? And, thus, are questions of loot simplified?

 

Actually, one of the nice things about the single player v. multiplayer split in this case is that the effort to add extra functionality and content for each mode is probably heavily weighted toward different areas of the team: single player content is probably mostly cards and new campaigns from designer types, whereas multiplayer functionality is probably more engineering heavy. Thus, it's entirely possible that both modes could receive roughly equal amounts of love post-launch.

The bottleneck will likely be art, but I figure if you feed Ben enough coffee and other assorted stimulants, everything will work out in the end with no negative consequences whatsoever.

I could probably post a lengthier reply about this at some point, but this seems perfectly within the realm of possibility. Some sort of time-based compensation a la DOTA 2 or TF2 seems like it'd be a good fit here: maybe a reward of (X)Y gold pieces for completing a multiplayer match that was X minutes long. DOTA 2 also guarantees you an item drop if you play Z hours worth of matches. Could probably do something similar here. Lot of possibilities for fair compensation, and I don't feel like it'd hurt the single player game at all.

 

I wouldn't imagine they just dump competition play when they already have it working. (Beta will test if it's working well.)

Extra interface work is a prerequisite to any co-op play. On top of that, building a multiplayer "campaign" would mean a whole new set of modules since the maps have to balance for more players. I would like to see that eventually, but they could lay the groundwork by building co-op arena matches first, then extending that into campaign mode as schedule permits. I see co-op as changing how many "P"s are in the PvP and PvE*, not as altering the tension between the two camps or how to outfit players who aren't that interested in campaigning.

Edit: *(Probably no more than 2 on a team. Can you imagine how cluttered a board with eighteen figures would be? It would be un-fun to be caught in the mob with nowhere to move. That's why I play games intead of throwing myself into real sword battles.)

 

Co-op play is definitely another beast entirely, but one I would wholly back. I feel like one of the best parts of playing DnD with your friends is playing DnD with your friends. I'm actually surprised co-op wasn't mentioned much before PAX. I'm glad they shifted it up on the priority list. I imagine it's going to be put higher than the Rogue class which has gotten some dialogue here on the forums. While that's pretty unfortunate for all those fans of shadows and thievery it's good to know that Blue Manchu listens to its audience.

 

Co-op could certainly use smaller teams of characters... One character per player might be too few, but I bet things could still be plenty interesting with two. If you kept the max number of players at three, you might even be able to use something akin to the existing UI: just stack each player's two characters on top of one another on the bottom of the board.

 

Personally, I think any form of multi-player would be nice, as long as it is balanced. Co-op and controlling one character would be very D&D like, and that is just fine with me. Competitive would be cool too, even if it only includes a ranking system as simple as just a W-L record. I remember back to the original Starcraft, you knew how good someone was just by looking at the W-L. A ladder would be great and all, but that may be a huge commitment for the developers.

Basically the game does need some form of multi-player. As long as it is balanced and playable though, I don't particularly see a way they could go wrong.

 

Awesome! Competitive multi-player sounds great. A basic ELO system is just icing on the cake.

 

ELO? What? You mean Electric Light Orchestra? I was unaware their music was integral to multiplayer.

Does it have something to do with Strange Magic? Is the spell Turn to Stone prominently featured in PvP, somehow? Great, now I Cant' Get it Out of My Head. :/

In other words... you've lost me. I need to go look up this "ELO" terminology, now.

 

This... this depresses me. Don't bring me down, Zoorland.



Don't bring me dooooooooown, ZOORLAND.

 

Awesome, I get to depress Roshirai.

But in my defense, it's easy to guess that this term has to do with win records and game matchmaking and such, and I just plain have not been involved in much competitive play. There are so many unappealing competitive games out there, yipe . . .

(Don't let that trick you into thinking I'm uncompetitive, though. Me and strategy are like THIS [insert image of crossed fingers here].)

 

For those people who (like me only minutes ago) might not know: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system

I wonder whether and how these apply to Card Hunter.* Nobody has described what would be a draw state, unless maybe there's an option for both players to mutually resign. And we have heard about victory points, suggesting a quantity of victory, but not the whole story about how they are obtained or used beyond the dev's goal to encourage action instead of sitting and waiting. If, for example, a match is played to 10 points, then a score of 10-9 should be a more closely fought game than one of 10-3.

*Edit: general curiosity as well in connection with rankings. If I were a cat, I'd be dead.