[Question] When the campaign reaches Lv50, will multiplayer still be balanced around Lv18?

As title. Just wondering how multiplayer will be changed once single player reaches higher levels.

 

This is going to be a complicated one. Let's try to get some structure in the arguments right from the start:

Advantages of leaving multiplayer at level 18:

• Buying a multiplayer starter pack gives you equipment for low-level characters. A level 50 multiplayer starter wouldn't be useful any time soon for the campaign.
• Playing the campaign to level 18 gives you equipment you can use in multiplayer. If multiplayer was level 50 you would have to play the campaign very long before you could modify your MP deck.

Advantages of making multiplayer level 50:

• Multiplayer would remain at the highest level of the game, constituting the "end game" or "elder game" of Card Hunter.
• Your multiplayer characters wouldn't feel weaker than your campaign heroes, and you could use any tactics and items from the campaign in multiplayer.

Overall I'm tending towards either leaving multiplayer at level 18, or to make two or three different levels of multiplayer, although that would complicate things. The fact that the campaign and multiplayer use the same item pool makes this issue somewhat tricky: A level 50 character has 8 silver and 4 gold power tokens and isn't likely to be using any item with no, clear, or bronze power tokens. So while the level 18 multiplayer mode today mixes well with the campaign, the level 50 multiplayer mode wouldn't mix at all with the campaign before level 25. And how do you handle multiplayer reward chests at level 50? Give random items from level 1 to 50, half of which would be of no help at all in multiplayer?

 

I had the same things on my mind. One of the biggest issues I can see with making different levels of multiplayer is that it begins to split up the player base, especially if players can't backtrack to a lower tier (or visit a higher one in advance, if the lower tiers happen to be low on players). Unless they were meshed together somehow? Is that even viable? I'm thinking of a system where players unlock tiers of multiplayer as they go through the campaign, and then they must have a different party ready for each tier available to them. When they're matched with a player, they play using the highest level tier that both players have unlocked (So a lv50 player vs a lv18 player would both be using a lv18 team). Of course, it might be difficult to keep track of multiple multiplayer parties. That way at least there would likely always be somebody to play against even if there is a lone newbie trying to get matched with dozens of people who have already reached the high tier. But then what if the high level players don't want to play low tier? Having the option to turn off unwanted tiers kind of ruins the point of the system, even though it might not be fun for people to play lower levels. Well, just a random thought.

 

I'd guess there will be multiple tiers of multiplayer. I think it's just important to make sure that the level(s) with the most interesting environment are selected for them. End game MP might be fun, but much less so if every hit is a one shot without a block or armor for instance. The levels with the best selection of items that allow for the most flexibility in both play and build styles should be the focus IMO.

 

I assume they don't want to split the player base at this point. So for that reason they will choose one pre-set level for multiplayer.
Also I believe, since they put so much work into balancing it for level 18 (starter packs, collecting data), I just don't see the level being moved up. Plus pvp should be accesible pretty soon into the game and if you put the multiplayer level much higher, it would take a long time till you could even modify your starter deck with cards obtained in the campaign.

 

If there would be enough players some MP tiers could be useful (like 18-34-50) in current scheme.
As for equipment availability and level-scaling issue I'd prefer similar to Guild Wars (1st) approach:

• at MP you get maxed out party, so each time you're going into MP you get scaled to 50lvl.
• all common items are free and all unlocked to be equipped at MP.
• uncommon+ item are either unlocked with gold(once) or must be found in campaign mode to be available or unlocked via winning. (so if you have that very epic item, you could use it in MP as much as you want to. no need to have 3 axes to be able equip same axe 3 times)
• winning MP matches gives gold, not items.
• win streak gives increasing chance to unlock item.
• X wins per day still grant access to chests where you could find gear for SP(and if it's new item kind - unlocking it for MP).
• starter packs do only mp item unlocks, not influencing SP(and 3 new lv1 characters)

 

Multiple tiers (as in World of Warcraft PvP) seems logical to me, so long as the player base can support it.

One option would be to set up multiple tiers, and let the market decide.

 

I like the MP @ lvl 18

1) It allows the gameplay and deck building to be more strategic, instead of OMG, just fill every slot with mega items
2) It gives great value to low lvl items with low talent cost

BUT, It seems a higher lvl or new high lvl MP is probably in the works. Seems unlikely than you would have lvl 5o items/chars and not being able to MP with them

 

I like the idea of tiers, the only thing I'd like to add is another tier at the 4 blue token level. New players could play without having to face 2 shot attack cards they don't even have yet, and old players could have a fun challenge trying to build the strongest deck possible with extremely limited resources. Overall, tiers is a win-win for everyone, it lets everyone play how they want, and avoid playtypes they don't want. As for choosing a tier to play in, there could simply be a row of checkboxes next to the play button, one for each tier, plus a select/deselect all button for convenience. Each tier could have a separate keep and party storage, and different maps balanced around the overall power-level of the items in that tier. To incentivize playing on multiple tiers (if tiers do end up fragmenting the playerbase more than intended), there could be a separate chest line for each tier, with a short chest line (and a low reset time, low enough that it could be completed twice in the same day, possibly) for the low tier, and longer chest lines (with longer reset times, the highest tier taking multiple days and possibly only resetting once a week or so) in the higher tiers.

 

But at that level players would still have access to Obliterating Bludgeon (from Infused Greatclub), and they'd have less health to survive it. If anything, I think PvP at lower character levels would be even more brutal and unforgiving than the current PvP level.

I'm not really a fan of the tiers idea, because I don't think the playerbase is big enough to support it. More tiers would mean fewer players in each tier, which would lead to less effective matchmaking and less meaningful ranking / rating. And it there would be endless arguments over which tier was the best, or more elite, or hardest, and so on.

I think it would be kind of cool to have occasional tournaments or something like that held at a different character level, and it would be fine to allow custom games to set a custom level. But I don't think there should be multiple tiers for normal ranked multiplayer matches.

 

I don't think it is realistic to imagine that there will not be multiplayer at the highest current level of the game. Otherwise, what would a new expansion deliver for PvP players? And since it may take a while to get there, there will also be multiplayer at intermediate tiers. The simplest option is to keep the L18 tier and add a tier at the new max level. If I were Blue Manchu you'd have to give me a convincing argument before I considered doing it any other way.

That said, I think the concept of tokens will need rebalancing if the game goes to higher levels. Right now there's a hard limit on the level of items with no tokens, and you effectively need some of those items. So there's going to be a gap between level 6-8 and some level close to the maximum, in which items are basically only useful for a very limited period of time, i.e. when you are around those intermediate levels.

Some possible solutions:
- the items that you can use token-free depend on your level
- some good items at intermediate levels don't require tokens
- you get some extra blue tokens as you level, compared to the current plan (maybe even applying to higher token tiers as levels increase further)

[I say solutions, but obviously not everyone may perceive this as a problem, or perceive it the same way.]

 

I personally don't think we should treat an increase in character levels as a fait accompli. I know the existence of this suggests that there could eventually be level 50 character, but I can't see how the current level system could reach to level 50 without some major adjustments in scaling between levels; and I've never seen any of the devs discuss it.

I'm going to find and quote a post that I made about this awhile back which I think illustrates what I think the problem is:

There are already a few cards in the game which would be suitable for slightly higher level items - but not 30 levels above what we have now.

So in my view it's premature to worry about whether or not we need different tiers of multiplayer for high level content, because the form and existence of that higher level content is still very uncertain.