Acquiring Items

In general I don't take issue with any specific monetization method, but it always comes down to the implementation. I am surprised by some of the responses to this, so I figure I will offer my thoughts.

Selling normal in-game items. This is really hard to do right, I wouldn't suggest it. Collectible games are prone to having certain items being almost required. Some item/items will become the best thing for the metagame, and players will need a set to be competitive. Do players need to "earn" those items through random loot drops or can they purchase them directly?

Imagine an item that dropped in 1% of plays in a high level module. Lets say that you need multiples of this item, and defeating the module takes 1 hours. On average it will take 100 hours to "earn" one of these items, for some unlucky players it would take even longer. Players will want to be able to buy their way around this type of time commitment. It's entirely possible that the metagame would shift to other cards before many players were even able to obtain a set.

Also, keep in mind that a module will be fun to play through the first couple of times, but eventually it will just be repetitive "farming". Beating the same monsters, that you already know how to beat, as quickly as possible for a chance to obtain some item. It's a question of how much time you have to commit to the game and how quickly you get bored with replaying the same module.

How much you charge to get around that amount of time is very tricky. Some players would be willing to pay large amounts, others won't be willing to pay anything. Any price you pick will alienate some amount of your players. This is why selling "random" packs is much more popular. Players can only buy a chance to get the items they want, so the overall price can be much lower. The secondary market (trading and such) sets the value of any specific item.

Selling some modules. If items are specific to a module this could be an issue. On one hand, tying items to a module is very in flavor with the old RPG theme. The evil sorcerer you defeat who has a specific magic item. Online RPGs have almost made this a default mechanic. So I think it could be acceptable to the player base. But once you need to buy the modules in order to get those items it can create a negative reaction in a free to play game. Players would need to buy content in order to get items they need to be competitive.

It's worth thinking about how the developers will eventually introduce new items. With most collectible games new content is sold through additional releases. This would easily fit into a model of releasing new modules. Do all future items need to also e available for free to all players in order to maintain balance? (probably in my opinion, but the devs have to eat too)

It's also worth mentioning that a lot of iOS games struggle with selling additional chapters of game content. Some very good games have had difficulty making this model work. Players seem much more accepting of buying new content in collectible games.

Selling cosmetic items. This is a no-brainer. No issues to complain about, and people will want different looking playing pieces for their characters. Make lots of them, sell them, repeat.

Selling randomized or standardized packs. If the premise is that all items should also be available to non-paying players, than the ability to buy cards simply acts like a "boost" in other games. For money you are able to get items more quickly than you could by playing the game.

Selling items to speed up looting and character advancement. These are also very common, and generally accepted as not being over-powered in online games.

EXP boosts make since for people who are primarily interested in the multiplayer content, but it may not be needed in Cardhunters based on what the developers have said. It sounds like multiplayer characters default to a high level, so players don't need to level up their characters in order to play against each other. In this case EXP boosts would only make playing the modules easier. That would enable players to get to high level content more quickly, which is what many players will want. It doesn't seem any more or less of a balance problem than selling items. If they want to speed through the single player portion of the game, than why not let them?

Item boosts seem to be more appropriate to Cardhunters. Something like pay X dollars for a 24 hour increase in all items that you find. This would be a popular option for a lot of players. Functionally is this any different than selling random boosters of items? With boosts you still have to play the game in order to get the items, but either option is simply a mechanism for obtaining items in exchange for money.

 

If getting an item boost encourages the player to play multiplayer more then that means its better for the game than having boosters. As the more people actively playing the competitive mode the stronger the community and the more chance of finding opponents.

 

Without reading ALL of these posts, it kind of reminds me of guild wars 2. The SPvP gives everyone equal footing right off the bat for competitive play but many people have complained that they should GAIN something more for it. Then theirs WvW where although you are level scaled, traits and equipment do make a difference. I'm wondering if these modes could be applied to many games, including this one. WvW makes up for the gear-skewering by the sheer number of players and the anonymity to relieve the pressure. If factions were ever introduced to the game (adventurers vs the other guys?) then maybe some dungeons could be fought over and controlled, where actual objectives are at stake is where people would use their real characters and their own cards.

 

I just don't see the need to tie boosts solely to multiplayer, it's just about allowing people to obtain more items in less time. If some group of players prefer single player, that's fine and there's no harm in trying to make some money of of them. Boosts also function as a catchup mechanism for players who join at a later time. So I could imagine a player who wanted to play through the single player modules with an item boost, it would net them more items rather than having to replay the same modules for more items (which would take longer). This would help them get the items they needed for multiplayer quicker.

The collectible model is a little different, but there's better methods to encourage multiplayer. Something like LoL where the first multiplayer match of each day grants a bonus does a great job of encouraging players to try multiplayer and keep coming back for more. So long as they enjoy it, they'll keep playing.

How you match up new players in multiplayer is a big issue for online collectible multiplayer games. Normally a well tuned competitive deck in the hands of an experienced player will destroy a new player with a random assortment of cards. This can be a less then enjoyable experience for both players. Magic the Gathering Online sort of separates out their players. Pox Nora had similar issues as well.

 

I cannot entirely agree, because building a CH item/card set is planned to be a longer-term process than buying packs in other CCGs. Card Hunter features a singleplayer game of roleplaying a roster of characters that gets stronger over time. At the very first level, a player can hardly use anything better than the slot defaults. If each player were to receive a selection of gold and silver tier items by doing nothing more than registering, those items could sit unused for a long time. There is no need of them in the campaign until one levels up, and when a player is leveling up then he or she is also earning items.

Let us turn the question around. Instead of asking "By what means can players get high tier items/cards for multiplayer if not by campaigning," I would rather ask "How can multiplayer be designed so that low tier items, like those new players own, are useful in competition?"

Part of the design already addresses this with the talent bead system. If a player never has enough beads for every slot, then lower tier items must be used to fill out the deck. Even the lowliest items can have merit when considering the relative cost to equip them. Yet, as this converstion demonstrates, that alone is not enough because of the slots that do have high talents.

An idea that deserves more attention is to create multiple tiers of multiplayer competition, though every official announcement so far has put multiplayer at a fixed, high level. But this level is an arbitrary designation -- it need not even correspond to any numbered level of singleplayer -- and there is no game reason that it could not just as well be a fixed, low level. (Tiered multiplayer will require more programming work than one-size-fits-all, so there is a development reason.) Truthfully, the more I consider having multiple tiers of competitions, the more I feel it will be a necessity as Card Hunter evolves. Why not start planning for it now?

Multiplayer could be designed in such a way that any new player is potentially competitive in the lowest rankings tier. To move up successfully, he or she must do some combination of: (A) spend time playing to earn better items, (B) make store purchases, or (C) have a really good strategy for using low level items. I believe that any of those three things is a good outcome for Card Hunter's overall success.

In addition, I propose placing gates in the form of tickets/invitations to play at each tier higher than the first. If tickets are available as a reward for playing, whether single or multiplayer, then nobody will be shut out: indeed, those who play most often will arguably be better contenders; and getting tickets as loot may help to entice longtime soloists like myself into the multiplayer lobby. You could set multiplayer rewards such that a "return ticket" to the same tier is a possible prize, even for losers if they make a good showing, so that a player can compete again more easily at the level he or she has earned. Working one's way up through the tiers and rankings lists of multiplayer becomes a rough equivalent to leveling up in singleplayer, decreasing the tensions to be resolved between the two modes of play. Of course, a player can also buy his or her way up at any time: the price curve of tickets and items will support the F2P base.

To finish up my thesis, I'll present my personal proposal for multiplayer tiers. Each level is aptly named by the highest talents available:

CLEAR - 6 clear talents, 6 empty talents. Free entry. Starting equipment should be okay but not enough to be the best, leading to (A), (B), or (C).
BRONZE - 5 bronze, 5 clear, 2 empty
SILVER - 4 silver, 4 bronze, 4 clear
GOLD - 3 gold, 3 silver, 3 bronze, 3 clear

Just a suggestion, and the system could be extended by several degrees, even to user-customized matches. We would have to beta test to see how well it works . . .

 

While I think this system could work quite well it has two one major drawback.

1) Fractures the player base: In any competitive game with a small player base the designers must be very careful to ensure that they all want to play the same mode. If not enough people play a competitive mode then it is hard to get games, hard to improve and generally not much fun. If competitive multiplayer is important then a lot of care should be made to ensure that as many people can and do play it as possible. By making multiple multiplayer modes players would be split between them, even with a ranking tier system there might just not be anyone in your tier to play against, and so no way of playing or improving without paying money.

Of course this issue disappears as soon as the player base gets large enough, so we could cross our fingers and hope that the beta blows up. But I think it's best to plan on starting with a single multiplayer mode that most people can enjoy and then build up the player base so that more competitive multiplayer modes can be added later. StarCraft 2 did this by adding master and grandmaster leagues long after release (also note SC2 is balanced from the get go even between leagues, skill is the only determining factor of success). I should also note that a fixed low level multiplayer mode would address this issue but also risk breaching "If multi-player characters were always level 20, for example, level 40 items would never see play and level 10 items would rarely be used. Instead, we needed to come up with a system that allowed the use of all kinds of items." unless at least one talent of each level was available at this low level.

2) Players cannot play the "real competitive mode" when starting out: Well actually, your design actually completely solves this issue by allowing players "(B) make store purchases" which bypass these earlier ranks. I would be totally fine with this solution. If I felt like being cheap and grinding my way up the ranks I could, but if I want to support the game and play the "real competitive mode" (GOLD) right away then I could just pay and get to it.

To summarise, I think this could be a good solution, especially if some way of preventing the player base from being fractured could be found. I wonder what other ways of building the multiplayer could also work?

 

Sorry I wasn't very clear there. What I actually wanted to say was that if you can design systems which encourage people to play more multiplayer games (without psychological abuse) then thats good for the game, the players and the overall community. As you say there are other more effective ways to do this such as first win of the day, somthing I would wholeheartedly recommend Blue Manchu recreate in one form or another.

I think this is mostly in the hand of matchmaking for regular multiplayer games. The matchmaking system should after a short delay be very capable of matching players against people around their deck building and game playing skill. I don't think it's necessary to separate players into different multiplayer modes though, except perhaps a newby/tutorial zone to ease new players in if they so choose. Also one people start entering leagues or tournaments I think anything goes, you're up against whoever else is competing no matter the skill and deck disparity.

 

Yeah, I agree that's a pitfall. I am optimistic, however, that if when Card Hunter is the success we pre-beta fans hope for, then the base will indeed be large enough.

Consider the following scenario: on Day 0, Hour 0 every player starts out equally low. Then it will be hard to find Gold-level matches because few people will choose to spend their money with little expectation of return. More likely is that users inclined to multiplayer will mostly start to play in the lowest, open-to-all tier. These games are (we hope) thrilling and competitive for all involved, because all are similarly new (beta notwithstanding). Whether by campaigning or a multiplayer loot system or purchases, the players will steadily gain items and rank. It may take a little coaxing on the devs' part, but some will move to the next tier and begin to establish that playerbase. And so forth until there is an active playerbase at all tiers. People who join well after the debut will also be inclined to start low and work up, although as the playerbase fills in they will have more and more incentive to buy up. Because I don't think that low tier matches will be measurably less skill-oriented or less fun, I have no problem with letting the playerbase grow into the tiers over time.

I would avoid the phrase 'multiplayer modes' because, to me, 'mode' implies that there is something unique in one tier unavailable in another. No, it should be completely the same multiplayer game played out under differing creative constraints in deckbuilding, much the same as if a user-organized league were to hold an all-wizard tournament. When the starting conditions are equally enforced, then we expect the skill of the players to be the deciding factor of success. I will not equate "real competition mode" with "Gold tier" unless there is demonstrably less skill-based outcome in the others. Each multiplayer tier should be strategically competitive, and emotionally satisfying, for its item set. I don't see why the playerbase necessarily breaks into "I only want to play at such-and-such a tier." If it is not the case that all tiers are fun and worthwhile, then it becomes an issue of rebalancing the game.

(Morally, I refuse to count bragging rights as the "something unique.")

I envision, in my 4 tier system, simultaneously tracking 5 rank stats: one "master" rating as well as a matchmaking/skill rank within each tier. Advanced players who "de-level" should be matched against the better available players of that tier, providing a reasonably consistent degree of challenge. There would never be "no way to improve" because winning at any level is presumed to reflect sound playing and is reflected in a player's master score, as well as earning rewards in the hypothetical multiplayer loot system. If the tier is sparsely populated, then there are issues with potential disparity in the matchups, but I do think that the curve of player growth can help keep lower tiers full and matches satisfactory.

Edit: P.S. I would also be interested to hear other suggestions for building multiplayer. I'm a bit fixated on this one at the moment.
Edit: P.S. As a "longtime soloist," perhaps I'm over-optimistic about the willingness of competitive personalities to play at "low" tiers.

 

You guys type too much.

 

Promote like a mother*%@#$!. Get your name out there to every gamer, constant updates so long as they are meaningful and not spam, and do what you can to increase the appeal with each big update to the press. It helps to make the gamer constantly find more they would enjoy about the game as its finishing development.

 

# of bestselling, lauded games worked on by Jon Chey: plenty
# of any games at all produced by mightymushroom: none
I think I will defer to your expertise. SO on to the next wild idea.

I disagreed with Evolved's suggestion of blanket providing high-level items in order to raise new players to the multiplayer level because I feared it would devalue adventure play. (Maybe because I was attracted in the first place by the dungeon-delving game more than the competitive card game.) It makes sense as an analogy to real paper starter decks, but here, to me, pre-furnishing items to newcomers feels cheap, a something-for-nothing handout that creates little player investment. YET . . .

I have understood the ideas discussed so far to be rather permanent plans for adding items to a player's collection. Let's not overlook supplementing a player's deck with high talent items only temporarily.

Give players access to a time-limited selection of free items (one for each of the characters' slots) of mixed talent levels ("coincidentally" matching the talents available) and no one is shut out of multiplayer because of deficiencies in his or her permanent collection. Players can enter multiplayer with a party crafted elsewhere, plus their personally owned items, and then choose to "borrow" some items from the random dispensation that they believe will improve their play. The duration of the loan could be anything, but I would do it just for a single battle: the borrowed items/cards are loaded into the multiplayer instance but not remembered on a player's account.

Borrowing is a double-edged sword. A borrower has the chance to use powerful cards he or she would not otherwise access, but will have difficulty building a coherent strategy and may end up with wildly varying decks from one battle to the next. Still, the opponent's deck will also vary in any case; flexibility is part of successful play. Hopefully players will exit battle with an itch to improve their collections for next time. As players advance through the game, they need to borrow less as their owned resources grow. There is still potential for veterans, though, since unless a player owns every item there is always the chance of borrowing something "new."

Is Gary the overseer/mediator of the multiplayer game, too? Imagine this dialogue:
Gary: The coliseum quartermaster stares at your party with his single, rheumy eye. Giving a laconic grunt, he sets out a handful of items to loan for your upcoming fight.
It's an in-fiction explanation that Gary offers, via his own fiction, to make a contest between mutual friends more evenly matched.

Blue Manchu could also add a "Gambler" function, accepting bribes to re-roll the selection overall or for a new/upgraded item in a specific slot.

 

"It is with narrow-souled people as with narrow-necked bottles. The less they have in them, the more noise they make in pouring out." -- Alexander Pope

 

I think that offering temporarily available items is by far the best solution to the dilemma we've been discussing. It's provides newcomers with viable items to play in the competitive modes without devaluing the investment of the veterans. I also love your flavour of treating these items as borrowed. It makes them feel worse than permanent items, even though they're not, perfect! They could even have their own lame borders or some other artistic flourish to make them feel even less good.

What is less clear to me though is the best means of providing players with on loan items. I did have some trouble understanding how your one battle only system would work, so if you could re-explain it for me that would be awesome. In the meantime I'll put together a list of the few alternative ways of offering temporary items I can think of and try to get some pro and cons for each, so we can see how they stack up. I'll edit the post and add any other ideas people have as well as any more pros or cons for each alternative.

 

Together each of these options share a couple of pros and cons, I'll add in an alternative to these temporary options at the end for good measure.

All Temporary Card alternatives

Pros:
- Allow all players to compete on an equal footing no matter their background.
- Acquiring permanent items is still encouraged as it offers both permanence and more variety week to week.
- All players will have interesting deckbuilding choices that may change on a regular basis.

Cons:
- Players may ignore single player completely.
- Permanent items are somewhat devalued due to occasionally having a borrowed version available.
- Additional programing and development for distinguishing between permanent and borrowed items.
- May require many many different items for each slot.


Shared Free Rotation

(The league of legends model)
Each week (or fortnight or whatever) the quartermaster gets in a shared pool of cards that any player can borrow from for free. All players are free to use these same items as much as they want until he gets his next batch of items in. Each time he refreshes his stock, the new items are selected by the developers so that they vary week to week and so that he has "one item for each of the characters' slots of mixed talent levels, "coincidentally" matching the talents available".

Pros:
- Players have access to the same borrowed items, so the borrowed items are perfectly balanced against each other.
- No randomness, items are hand selected to offer players with varied and viable options week to week
- The item pool doesn't change too often so players have some time to really test out a few different decks, before trying to acquire permanent versions of those items for themselves.

Cons:
- Decks made out of borrowed items will have a lot of similarities which will make games against and between new players repetitive.
- Devalues acquiring items for the entire week that the item can be borrowed for free.
- Large investment in developer time each week.

Monetizing options: None new.


Random Free Rotation

Each week (or whatever) the quartermaster gets in new stock which he can loan out for free for players to use in battles. They are free to use these items as much as they want until he gets his next batch of items in. Each time he refreshes his stock, the new items are randomly selected and he has "one for each of the characters' slots of mixed talent levels, "coincidentally" matching the talents available".

Pros:
- Matches between completely borrowed decks will show a lot of variety, due to having access to a completely different pool of cards.
- Really challenges people deck building as they never know what they are going to have to work with.
- The item pool doesn't change too often so players have some time to really test out a few different decks, before trying to acquire permanent versions of those items for themselves.
- No week to week input from developers.

Cons:
- Randomness may make it hard to build a viable deck, or a deck that you like.
- Some players may not be able to build decks that are balanced against one another.

Monetizing options: Paid refresh of the quartermasters stock.


Random multi use pool

The quartermaster has a pool of items players can choose to loan for free to use in battles. They can only use each items five (or whatever) times before it is broken and replaced with new stock (randomly chosen).

Pros:
- Matches between completely borrowed decks will show a lot of variety, due to having access to a completely different pool of cards.
- Really challenges people deck building as they must now worry about saving good items for when they need them, and squeezing bad items into decks so they can "re-roll" them.

Cons:
- Matches between completely borrowed decks will show a lot of variety, due to having access to a completely different pool of cards.
- Players must now worry about saving good items for when they need them, as they could screw up their item pool by using all the good items then rolling bad ones
- May be exploitable.

Monetizing options: Paid refresh for all of the quartermasters stock, paid repair of an item you want to use more.


Random one use pool

Same as above but each item has only one use.

Pros: As above
- Permanent items are hardly devalued at all because borrowed items are so unreliable

Cons: As above
- But now players may never use their good items, and so most games will be with sub optimal items, instead of bringing their best each game.

Monetizing options: Paid refresh for all of the quartermasters stock, paid long term load of an item you want to use more.


Permanent starter decks

For comparison I'll include starter decks. Players choose one starter deck when they make their account which will give them a balanced pool of permanent items.

Pros:
- Matches between different starter decks may show a lot of variety.
- Allows developers to target starter decks with beginner style easy to understand cards which allows players to ease into multiplayer.
- Acquiring permanent items is still encouraged as it offers more variety.
- Different items are devalued for different players, so there is variety in the player pool.

Cons:
- Additional programing and development for distinguishing between permanent and borrowed items.
-Developers must now make a bunch of starter decks which are balanced against each other, but also allow some customisation and deckbuilding.
- Devalues single player as players have no need to re-obtain these items.
- Matches between people with the same starter decks may be boring.
- Players may only ever play multiplayer.
- May eventually exhaust all deck building options with an unchanging starter deck.

Okay well thats the list for starters, let me know of any additions, changes or corrections and i'll happily update it.

 

Sure thing, I didn't really run through the process the first time anyway. I would develop it as a another stage on your way through the lobby. As I imagine it:

Start at the beginning: you log in. You come to a main screen/map where you are basically choosing between going an an adventure (dungeons), working on your deckbuilding (taverns, stores and your home keep), or entering multiplayer combat. You choose multiplayer.

This is the point when the magic happens: instead of jumping straight into the matching queue, you first visit a special auxiliary deck builder, as if you had stopped by the Lost & Found Storeroom at the combat arena. The "quartermaster" makes available a random selection of one-time use items, presumably in a box somewhere on screen (you don't need a mule for multiplayer matches, do you?) and with a unique graphic overlay identifying them as "loaners." You may re-build your deck if you choose to do so (including using items from the normal owned collection you always have). Then you get into line for the actual combat.

The game engine loads you into battle equipped with cards just as if you were using ordinary items. Only, the borrowed stuff is never logged anywhere on your account. Once the combat is over, they vanish as if you were forced to return them to the supply closet. When you check your home base again, the deck compositions are as they were at your prior save. Because you never "gained" anything, the basic borrowing operation can be free-to-play without devaluing the channels for permanently acquiring items.

I have to admit to being just a little bit fuzzy on a few details. For instance, I'm not sure whether it is better to allow everybody in the party to choose from the loan selection, or whether a character gets an "individual" allotment.

Shared Loan Pool
Pros:
- Greater flexibility in deckbuilding. You have a somewhat larger pool of items to mix into a character's existing deck.
Cons:
- You must choose your party beforehand so you get a "correct" mix
- Somewhat favors single class parties because they share more slots, so get more choices for those slots

Individual-only Loans
Pros:
- It may be possible to take your entire roster in, see what rolls up, and then choose your favored three. (I'm not positive this is the best way to run it; but it is a possibility, and possibly good.)
Cons:
- Less flexibility. You are stuck with the 9-10 items you get on loan for any one character.

I am also unsure exactly how broadly chosen the on-loan selection ought to be. There is an argument for the thrill of getting a super-rare epic wand, and an argument for keeping the choices more regulated so players need to go find epic wands. If it is narrower, very likely it will be rotated an a regular basis. Idle thought: perhaps it could be synchronized with the regular store selection (also a rotating stock), so that if you borrow something you like, you may be able to buy one of your own.

Overall, the item-borrowing scheme has numerous pros as already discussed.
One "hidden" con is that it could greatly increase pre-battle time especially for mid-level players. Beginners will always trade out most of their stuff, old-timers may already have a good deck; but middies will likely want to equip the gold loaners, then search their owned collection for lower-tier stuff with a matching strategy. Random items make it difficult to meaningfully build your deck beforehand. This could hurt the impulse to play quick, "Hey bro, you up for battle?" matches against friends.

BM could also run a variation of the scheme whereby borrowed or rented items are viable for a duration of time, say 48 hours. They'd probably operate the loaning system out of the storefront in that case. This gives the player more time to use and learn a given item, but at the expense of extra server work to track what items are in a player's account and for how long. These kinds of expiring bonuses are common, though, so I doubt its too much of a problem. (You wouldn't lose your items mid-battle, ever. Although mid-adventure might be fair, you knew they were expiring.)

If my preference counts, I think I would try for a quite broad free loan pool and individual-only use one battle at a time.

 

I tend to think that players are going to want ways to collect more specific items, rather than completely random chance. Similar to how players will focus on certain MOBs in online games based on their equipment needs. This would be a unique niche that boosts and/or random boosters could help fill.

With just the three starting classes, it's likely that when we obtain an item there will be some chance it will be class specific.

So the card pool might look like (this is all hypothetical):

300 equipment cards total
150 general items anyone could use
50 mage specific
50 fighter specific
50 cleric specific

So when you beat an adventure module and received an item there would be a roughly 1 in 6 chance of it being class specific. Over time players would of course collect more of this equipment. However, if a player needs a lot of class specific items, say they are focused on creating a deck of 3 clerics, it would take them longer to collect enough cleric specific items. If a players collection required a size N to support competitive multiplayer decks of one cleric, one fighter and one mage, just relying on random drops could require a collection of up to 3N to support competitive multiplayer decks focusing on a specific class.

This could get even worse as new classes are added Suddenly players would want to collect a bunch of high level equipment specific to the new classes for use in multiplayer. If a 4th class were added, long time players would likely be in a position where they needed a lot of the new classes equipment, but didn't need much for the other classes. The larger the card pool, the longer it would take to obtain those new items.

Players can always sell unwanted items to the store, and focus on purchasing what they want, but this is a tedious process (and unprofitable for the player and the devs). Boosts could be sold that allowed you to obtain a higher percentage of fighter specific items (or any other class). I think it would be an interesting use of an online game to have boosts that alter your reward chances, they wouldn't necessarily have to improve them. Random packs focusing on specific classes, especially if they were new, could also be popular.

 

All that means is longer time players would more easily get the new stuff they need from newer players because they have a stock of good items to trade. This does give them an obvious advantage when they have better gear as they make new class combos. It's a problem with most games out there.

 

What about a fixed starter PVP set of equipment for a particular class? Perhaps have a couple of different sets to choose from for each class? You would not be able to edit those sets, and they would only be able to be used in competitive multiplayer. You could design the decks to show off a varied amount of the mechanics available in multiplayer, so new players could get a good feel for how it plays. They will earn their own equipment while playing so once they have enough equipment they can then start putting their own sets together.

Pros

• Balanced sets of equipment for starting players.
• You could use weighting in the matchmaker for the starter decks, or create a unique lobby for them.
• No single player play required to get into multiplayer.

Cons

• Can't customize the sets. While it does take away that part of the game, it does give an intro into the game before "graduating" into deckbuilding.
• Might put newer players at a disadvantage. Weighting or a different lobby will alleviate much of this.

Cash Shop

• Sell copies of the starter sets for players to jump into deckbuilding.
• Starter set tournaments. Require the use of starter sets for the tournament, prizes could be packs of equipment aimed at beginners.