Nah, that's what the microcurrency was called in one of the interviews. A fine summary! As a customer, the first three would feel just fine to me, booster packs are more iffy but OK if they don't contain any booster-pack-only items, and the loot boosts are squarely in "hrmm, I dunno about that" territory. That's the part I really liked. I would definitely have a problem with buying stuff for single player if the single player campaign was balanced to be next to impossible to complete without buying items, but I find it very hard to envision a parallel universe in which Blue Manchu would do that to us. Well, maybe Tess would.
Lol, I'm going to have to agree with Roshirai here with the flavor of the items being bought. I like the books, the miniatures, and the booster packs. I think that the snacks thing is a pretty clever way to get the exp/gold boosts up and running. Good ideas Roshirai, does anyone have any others they'd like to share? We could find some gold in the brains of you folks out there.
If people are gonna weigh in on all the possibilities, I wonder if a poll could be set up. (Yes, I know that the forum has such a function. I'm just trying to figure out what a GOOD poll would be.) I guess I could weigh in, myself, based on my own list: Selling normal in-game items. As I said, I'm more okay with this than I used to be, because I realized that there's only so much damage that can be done: everyone still has talent limits (and related levels). I would not be okay if purchasable items were awesome cards that put normal cards to shame. Selling some modules. I'm okay with it. Same caution: not okay if they are the superior echelon of loot sources. Selling cosmetic items. Totally okay. I'd even like to buy some more apple slices for the game table. Selling randomized or standardized packs. Both okay by me, internet gambling notwithstanding. And same caution: not if they are the ultimate decks. Selling items to speed up looting and character advancement. Some people seem okay with this, but for this game (and many others . . . ) I don't see why. It directly interferes with gamePLAY (not just balance), and feels like one of the easiest things that could go wrong. So, the game is so slow and unrewarding that you need a speed boost to advance? Even if that weren't true, there would come the issue of "Argh, I didn't have my speed boost on, I just played two hours that weren't maximally efficient!" Why not just let people buy cards as above, and have everyone play the same GAME as each other?
So, when you say you're not alright with it if the modules contain the superior echelon of loot sources, do you mean that you don't want them to have any special loot? Or do you just mean that you don't want the cream of the crop items to be only available via Pizza Slices? Because I think the modules would be a much weaker option if they didn't contain some themed loot, that was one of the coolest things I found out when watching some of the play throughs from PAX. I'm glad you're posting before making the poll, because I think this is something that needs to be broken down into all (or at least most) options. Modules: -Unlocking early/quicker -Only containing loot that non-paying players can get (If not, how do we prevent these new items from becoming the most powerful?) -Multi-player maps -Rotating free modules. (Like League) Items: -All items available all the time -Rotating list of items that can be bought -Only a select few items (To get a player started in multi-player, similar to standardized packs) Cosmetic: -I don't think much needs to be voted on here. Include pretty things. -Include the option to purchase decorations for the table, like extra bowls of Gary's mom's world renown onion/apple snacks. (Gross, onions and apples don't seem like they would go well together. Oniapples? Applnions?) Packs: -Randomized/standardized/both -Pack exclusive cards (Could be alright if they don't play with any power curve. Could just be alternate variations of items that already exist, foils or holographics if you will. I like the potential of this idea, but it also scares me.) Loot/EXP multipliers: -Include them -How much of a benefit these would provide. Now I know that I definitely didn't cover all the options, but if you'd go ahead and make some suggestions I can add them into the rough draft of the poll .^
I would feel much better about Blue Manchu putting high-end modules, which would gate access to high-end gear, in cash shop if they did a free rotation. Much like what Leage of Legends does with their champions. There is still an incentive to purchase them, but you aren't denying access to high end gear to non-paying customers. They just have limited windows to have access to particular items.
I tossed the "not alright" sections into my post as almost an afterthought. By now, it's nearly unanimous that "we don't want the cream of the crop items to be only available for real-world cash." So, yes, my little notes meant as such. There is still the question of whether for-pay materials should include unique items at all. I mentioned one possibility that could necessitate unique items. But that's not nearly as concerning as the for-pay materials being BETTER than earn-by-playing materials. And, as to polling, I think Blue Manchu will have to decide if there's anything they want to ask.
This check-list is pretty nifty, good job Sir Sir Knight...Sir. Selling normal in-game items: I am alright with this. I've personally never bought anything from the store in TF2 because it can all be earned or traded for in-game. Not to mention the whole talents system keeping it in check. Selling some modules. I actually want this. They need to make their money somehow, and if a few bucks every other month gives me a new set of maps, loot (need not necessarily be superior, just different) and enemies I'm all for it. That being said, I also believe there should be a trickle of modules being released for the free-to-play guys. Can't have them left out in the cold. Selling cosmetic items. While it's unlikely I would pay for them unless they were something really special (Bad-ass character skins that couldn't be earned in-game, specifically), I have no problem with these being in the store. I'd also like to put forth the idea of an item that turns all your projectiles pink/green/blue/etc. Potentially confusing, especially if you already have "Green Fireball" and "Blue Lightning" spells, but some people might appreciate the change. Selling randomized or standardized packs. I'm okay with the Starter Pack type deal (drop $20, head straight to the competitive multi-player) but less so with the randomized distribution. I'm usually all for this (MtG, for example) but in this game it just seems contrary to the design goals. I feel the focus really should be on loot accruing over the course of an adventure, not just magically handed to you. Selling items to speed up looting and character advancement. Another thing that I wouldn't pay for, personally. I would be strongly opposed if it altered the chances of better/rarer loot dropping, but I'm perfectly okay with it altering the experience/gold gain. Some people really just don't have the time for that kind of grind. And remember folks, every point of boosted experience they get is less play-time invested into mastering the games many facets. I'll admit, I'm not really sold on the whole "Rotational Model" of free content. It aggravated me to no end in HoN/LoL and has sorta soured in my mind. New players should have a set of introductory (and ideally, much more than introductory) modules available at all times, with "sneak-peeks" of the paid modules made readily available. Just my two-bob.
I just thought I would pull this quote over because Raising suggests a method of restriction I hadn't really considered before. We're naturally concerned about maintaing competitive balance between free players and über-spenders, and I think this could help do that. Players can pay to get their items without farming modules, but only those items they've already unlocked. Of course items are not really restricted by level anymore, but there are probably ways to get around that. I suggest tying cash availabilty to completing adventures: for example, if I've finished the first eight modules then I can pay for anything from the monsters' loot drop list of those adventures. (Quest-specific rewards are still limited to doing the quest! They shouldn't show up in the store, anyway.) I can't purchase anything that I couldn't also get by replaying the module: a perfect example of cash==time trade. I've been worried that selling individual items leads to a pay-to-win mentality (i.e. if I pay for The Nameless Sword then this adventure will be easy) to the detriment of experimenting with your deck, and possibly even breaking the intended difficulty of modules. With this sort of restriction then I'm still working with the exact same tools, just obtaining them with a little less reliance on the drop percentage. Since the thread started with concerns about equipping folks who would rather skip the campaign in favor of multiplayer, I would suggest that the campaign-unlocked item selection be supplemented with booster packs -- not restricted by unlocking but also not guaranteed to be what you need next. I would much prefer non-random packs, like a complete set of themed armor, but that's the devs' call more than mine.
First thanks for pointing me in the direction of this threat mightymushroom. This is the best thread I've seen for discussing the tradeoff between single player (and gated content/grinding) and competitive multiplayer (allowing players to play on an equal footing no matter their investment). It's so full of information it probably should be stickied or linked from a stickied FAQ thread. So far it seems everyone falls on different parts of the continuum from wanting single player to be the only path to successful multiplayer to wanting to be able to pay for everything even if it compromises the single player experience. While this tradeoff will exist no matter what, I think there are solutions which are capable of keeping (Edit: almost) everyone happy with as little damage as possible. One way of doing this is by a) making each item in a talent levels balanced with the other items in that talent level and b) giving players access to either free or paid starter cards which are viable in multiplayer. This is similar to the character system of LoL and Fantasy Strike but adapted to the talent system of Card Hunter. I think that items within a talent level should be balanced against each other, that is no one item is strictly the best, but rather each item has its place in the right deck. Ultimate sword of doomming doom might be the best weapon in slot for a particular talent level for your particular character build, by might be useless in many other decks. Of course higher talent levels still offer strictly better items, so there is still lots of player choice in trading off higher talent level items in one slot against lower talent level item in another. I think that either giving players access to a free base set of items (which could change at set intervals) or the option to purchase a base set, will allow players with no interest in single player to enjoy the game and still be competitive. While this will allow new players to compete on an equal footing with well established players, it will in no way invalidate the well established players investment. Veterans will still have access to a much greater variety of decks and builds, and so have many more interesting decisions to make and trade-offs to consider. Veterans will also just straight up have access to more interesting builds, while the beginner's deck options might be competitive they don't have to be the most interesting to play. In fact, the prevalence of beginner decks will probably make them pretty boring for veteran players. I think this system, while not the only possible solution to the problem, does address several design challenges for the game. There are a few pros and cons to consider, especially when comparing to other solutions. Pros: - Players with free items or starter decks can compete based purely upon their skill (at deck building and playing matched) against other players no matter their opponents investment. - Playing single player or multiplayer or grinding or whatever are all still encouraged as gaining new equipment offers more variety, each equipment/skill gives access to new builds and ways of playing. - Players can now buy items without buying power, as they are only buying variety, since they already have access to a competitive set of equipment. - New players will still have interesting deckbuilding choices as they still have to balance between item talent levels for their characters, even if they don't have many within talent levels decisions, at first. - (Edit) Having balance within talent levels means that there are multiple viable options for players. If instead there was only a single best item per slot decks would homogenise multiplayer would stagnate. -(Edit) players could just play single player or just play multiplayer without being punished. Cons: - If equipment can bleed over to single player from multiplayer, some items may be very effective on some quests or against some enemies and may make single player a little too easy. - If a free item rotation system is implemented the devs will have to pick out a new set of items for players to have default access to every time it changes (this could be mitigated by making it fortnightly or monthly). - (Edit) The difficulty of actually having to balance each item in a talent level of against the other items in a talent level. - (Edit) May require many different items (4+) per talent level for each equipment slot. - (Edit) Players may just play multiplayer and not touch single player. Now please mercilessly tear this to shreds so we can help come up with an even better system. Plus there's surely some more cons that I've missed. (Edit: some grammar) (Edit: Renamed Tiers as talent levels, as per this blog post http://www.cardhunter.com/2012/03/borgo-the-talented/)
I could be merciless, but I believe I can express the Harshest Lash Of The Reviewer (I'll admit it, I did that for the font) with only one concern: You have not defined "tier." I can't really see the shape of the thing you are proposing without it. If the "tiers" you mean are simply "for-pay" and "earned-by-playing," well, then I believe many here already agree. Posts shortly above yours expressed a similar sentiment: I'm okay with the purchase of dedicated for-pay cards, but not okay if the for-pay cards are "awesome cards that put normal cards to shame." If the "tiers" are "single-player" and "multiplayer," I'm not sure what to think.
Okay yeah sorry I'll edit the above post. I meant Talent level or bead or whatever. ie. each gold talent level item for a particular class, must be balanced against each other gold talent level item for that slot. (Edit) I also separately propose the term tier, short for item tier or talent tier, to refer to the bead quality of an item, or items which share the same bead quality. So to clarify in this system there is no distinction between paid items and earned items (though that could potentially be added if it's thought to be necessary). I merely mean items with a particular bead colour/quality should be balanced against other items with the same bead quality.
Then I believe that, yes, many people agree with this idea. For thoroughness, I might note there are many "talent levels," given that a particular item might take a combination of different colors of talents. This allows for a lot of gradation, and I imagine the levels will be balanced through things like beta testing.
Many might agree, but as evidenced from the quote above, not everyone does. In the system above begginers have access to items that are balanced with the best items in the game, not strictly inferior. I would really like to hear from the people that disagree with this system so that we can improve it further. Also would suggest that a rotating system of temporarily free items would be better than a set starter deck system. This would allow players to try before they buy/grind and test out specific cards that they may not have considered before they invest time or money in obtaining them. I'm sure this would encourage play and spending as well as allowing a greater variety of decks to see play week to week. It would also stop all of the veteran players from having a starter stomper deck they bring out whenever they play against new players which is specifically designed to capitalise on the weaknesses the starter deck items.
Actually what you detailed above is quite similar to what I was alluding to in the quoted text there, I simply had not bothered to relate power to Talent levels. As for the "strictly inferior" bit... not having seen the multiplayer yet myself I'm unsure as to how the talent pool available to MP characters. Let us assume that for multiplayer a character has access to 2 Gold Talents and then 10 other Talents split between Silver, Bronze, and Clear. I would expect a purchasable deck would have mostly Bronze and Clear items and at most a couple Silver Talent items, definitely no Gold. To fully utilize your Gold (and likely Silver) Talents you would then need to acquire better equipment through actually playing. Not buying. So that's it; by "Above average, perhaps, but strictly inferior to the best items you could find in single player" I essentially mean "not Gold Talent items." Probably only a very limited selection of even Silver Talent items. Not that a purchased item would be actually worse than the same item you could find in the game, just that you actually have to play if you want to get the most mileage out of your character. There's a little more to it, I suppose, I would not want purchased "decks" to be optimized in any way, but... at that point I'm just getting pedantic. Really, I'm just trying my best to be tolerant here, which always muddles my speech. I am actually quite opposed to ever being able to purchase any sort of item, but I realize that such a thing is... unrealistic for a free-to-play game's business model. So since it is likely to happen anyway, I'm just hoping to limit the damage it can have on the game's single player campaign. Also from that same post: If you're going to have there be items purchasable with real money, then just... just keep them out of single player entirely. Please.
Cosmetics like unique character models and portaits would be great. If items are sold they should have a level requirement on them that needs met anyways, and may also depend on how trading is handled in the game. DM/creation mode might be very profitable for cash shop stuff, also the mule you carry for gear could be expanded. Then theirs always stuff like character respecs/renames/race swaps. Some F2P games create annoying mechanics that they charge to get around, like maybe travel distances are countered with mounts or teleport stones, or make choosing skills/talents permanent except for re-spec items. Then things like if you die in a dungeon maybe you respawn from the beginning, but a cash item would let you restart from the room you lost in, just a time saver. If theirs a shop, maybe you could refresh the wares with small cash items. Nickle and dime stuff that adds up if they're popular. You could always...well.uh... i hope you never get that desperate but... you could sell 'wings' to characters >_> haha im kidding about that =p
Lets compare two scenarios, in both items within a talent level are balanced (ie. gold bead items are equivalent in power to other golds, silvers to silvers...) but items of higher talent levels (ie gold vs silver) are more powerful. The difference between these two scenarios is that new players get 1) enough cards so that they have 1-2 clear, bronze and silver items for each slot or 2) a enough cards that they have 1-2 clear, bronze, silver and gold items for each slot. In scenario 1) everyone competes on an uneven footing, success is measured by skill at deckbuilding skill at playing the game, and duration of time spent grinding for gold level cards in single player. New players are at a distinct disadvantage when facing a player of equal skill. They can basically only win if they have far superior skill. If two new players face each other they are competing on the same level but they are not even playing the same game as the veteran players, they would be learning how to play a game with completely different rules to the actual competitive mode. In scenario 2) everyone competes on and equal footing and the only measure of success is skill at deck-building and skill at playing the game. Anyone can step into the game and start playing the real competitive multiplayer mode, not a nerfed down version that isn't actually representative of the proper game. As you can see the key difference is that in scenario 1) the winner is also determined by the duration of time spent grinding whereas in scenario 2) only skill predicts success. The implication being that new players are not actually able to play a competitive multiplayer mode but rather an imbalanced multiplayer mode, and at some point they can graduate to playing an actual competitive multiplayer mode. So I ask you this, would you actually enjoy playing against these new players in scenario 1)? Knowing that you have a fundamental advantage that has nothing to do with how good you are at the game, could you still take satisfaction from your victory? Surely it can't be fun to be on either side in these battles?
Yet in scenario 2, your new players are still only competitive if they have payed to be so. New free users are in an even worse state than they would be in scenario 1, as they would have far fewer opponents near their competitive level and a much wider gap between paying and non-paying new players.
What if in both scenario 1) and 2) these 1-2 cards of each talent level (bronze, silver, gold) are free upon creating an account. Or are on a rotating free item system where the free cards change every week or so.
"Free" base items are inherently different from items purchased with real money. If they are given to everyone, I have somewhat less of a problem with them, but I still disagree with allowing access to the highest tier of cards without actually having to earn them through play. And that still leaves the items that you do buy up for debate. In the end, this is a CCG. The very heart of CCGs is having things that other people don't. You can not have a perfectly level playing field in CCGs. There are always some cards (or, in this case, items) that are better than others (have a higher Talent tier), and you probably don't own them yet. But someone else does.
While I agree that CCGs are about having things that other people do not, our key difference of opinion is that I think the cards that each players initially has access to should be competitive from the get go. That is before a player builds their deck they have an equal chance of winning against any other opponent. Good and bad decisions during deck-building and gameplay will of course create an advantage for one player or the other. So what I'm saying is that initially the items all players have access to should be of equivalent power. However, the number and variety of items should differ wildly from player to player. Veteran players have access to a huge variety of cards and so an absolutely massive variety of decks and gameplay options. So instead of getting in game power for competitive multiplayer veterans are getting many more options more variety and more approaches to playing the game. Some decks should be better than others, some items should be really good in the current meta game. It's the variety in items and decks that should provide the heterogenety in the playing field, not intrinsic imbalances between the power of items new vs veteran players have access to. So I would change this to say "There are always some items that are better in some situations than others, and you probably don't own them yet, but you should have some items that are as good just in different situations." I just want to say I respect your opinion and I think Card Hunter will be great which ever way they decide to go. But if we can help make things better through discussing the details and presenting different opinions I think that's awesome.
