Today I have one suggestion up to consideration. It is based on fact that in a lot of games you get random loot, but random often means that you won't need it at all. I have an interesting idea which is a bit tailored to Card Hunter. it is based on my excess suggestion, to easily filter and sell items which cannot possibly be used by three characters. So from 4 same shoes you would always want to sell 1 pair, you won't need more than 3 shields etc. Here is the idea: Item which you find in a chest would never increase stack of items above its maximum reasonable capacity. You get treasure item instead. This would eliminate the need for selling excess of items and you would only accumulate treasure. So it would mean that if you have already found same 3 pairs of shoes, the same shoes you would get next would check for that and would give you treasure instead. At some point you (developers) could decide that instead of treasure you would get an item. Maybe lower its quality to compensate for the fact that it is much more useful thing and we would accumulate gear a bit faster? This changes items balance a lot but also makes getting loot less and less tiresome and random. It would probably mean that one item per chest might be enough. It would make people less frustrated to sell plenty of bejeweled shortwsords and lacking any nimble strike weapon. But that is just a bonus idea.
That's a pretty good idea. Altough treasure's only purpouse is to be sold, so it would save time to go a step further receive the gold directly. That'd allow the devs to give any amount of gold, and the players to distinguish between a normal treasure and a reward for repeated item.
Yes of course, but treasure could get some meaning, you could tweak it's rarity and it looks like a nicer reward than pure gold coins.
@Sir Veza: I don't think you're the majority. I don't think most players play the entire campaign or the purple MP chest daily. I usually play 1-2 SP adventures daily, and to the 3rd MP chest if I have some extra time. Yes, it would be very welcome if the random loot generator would give priority to items that you don't have yet (or fewer that the useful maximum amount).
So do I, although the irony may not have come through in my previous post. I like Vigun's Blessed Blade, but I didn't need a dozen or more. I think either a treasure substitution or a 'sell excess' button would work nicely.
Treasure substitution is my update on Excess sale idea. It is much superior because it: - is a lot easier to implement - does not require any change in the interface - does not require people to understand what an excess is and why, and maybe make mistakes by confusing one window for another and selling good items
In general, I support any idea which removes the need to keep selling excess items or significantly streamlines the process. It's pure mechanical labour, no game element should feel that much like work. Making it easier to collect all items is very problematic for a loot chase game like Card Hunter. Expanded opinion here.
I already said that and game developers are ones who are aware of it! That is why I suggested getting less items from chests instead. [EDIT: Which might be bad idea when more and more items join the game. So I would say keep current amount and add excess control at the same time, when the next bunch of cards goes live.] Main reason why I suggested that is that the game would be developed. And new items/cards will be added. So the pool of items you can get would increase over time. Randomness will become more and more an issue. Adding another set of items will also change the balance with all existing cards. You will have less and less chance to get them. So let's say you do want to find St Ulrich's Bones which is the only item with Bless. Somehow I don't think that the probability to get one would stay the same after new items are introduced. Same goes with other rare items. Plus you would get more and more common items flooding your inventory. The difference with MtG and this game is trading and sets (I am guessing because I have no idea about MtG). Maybe you can trade little and big cards or they do get some other use if you have an excess? So the veterans can choose what they get to some degree. Either with trading or by some other means. With the above suggestion going live, veterans will have more incentive to play because they will have more chance to get new items! So a beginner would see whole pool of items as a possibility for an upgrade. And veterans will already have them stocked and are totally not interested in them at all. They do not need to be more powerful. They will just give some other options for interesting interactions and tweaks to tactic. This also does not change game and items balance because ratio between common/uncommon/rare/legendary could (should?) stay the same after adding new content. It has one small impact on the developers though! It forces them to come up with new cards in regular intervals. So the veterans who found new cards and have plenty of them, wouldn't quit. Although to fight with boredom, I had suggested different things in the other thread (randomness in party composition).
I'm speaking as a player, not as a developer. It's hard to keep the right balance. You want to dangle the carrot just close enough to the players face that they'll think "ok, just one more battle, I'll get lucky this time". Too close, and they'll think "ok, got everything, back to <other game>", too far and it's "screw it, I have better things to do with my life". Of course, the sweet spot is different for everyone. Sooner or later, most players will have all the loot they want. At that stage, two things become important: - Add new content in regular, even if small doses to keep people interested - Make the MP challenging and satisfying enough that players stay in the community
Good points, Mosalla. We'll see how the devs handle the diluted chances of getting a particular item once a significant number of new items are introduced. My guess it won't be a significant enough effect to warrant handling at all. There are other elements to your suggestion, though, I'm not arguing against it.
I think this might would overly complicate things from a programming standpoint. Currently the loot system is separate from player inventory, but if what suggested here happened, loot would have to be compared with player inventory before it is even presented to the player. Not the biggest programming challenge in the world, but it could be too much work since there is a better way of doing it. A much more simple way to get the same exact effect would be to simply have a "sell excess items" button. This is better also because some people want to have those excess items so that they have have multiple characters ready and armed, and not "naked". Also some people may want to collect big piles of items just because they are crazy, and they should be given that option imo.
As I mentioned above in the current state of game it is not a big deal, but it will become more and more obvious when we get more cards, items and levels. Selling excess automatically or by hand can be done with a tick-box in some Advanced Options menu. Some people are crazy, but whole game should not be designed for or aimed at a small bunch of them. This proposal is a small step towards replacing excess item with a new one instead of treasure. Selling excess is not fun either. It just feels like you sell some junk. It reminds me of Diablo 3, where you get bazillions of items filling your inventory and worth nothing. Vendor trash is limiting player experience in my eyes.
My point was not that the game should be designed to people who want to hoard items. The point is that if excess items are automatically replaced with treasures, you take away control from players and basically tell them "no, you cannot have a 4th helmet even though you looted it and want it". What's the point in that when "Sell Excess Items" button would do the same exact thing in less than a second, and would be easier to program? It's a win-win situation for everyone from normals to crazies. I don't see how selling excess could be seen as "not fun". You get rid of crap items and also get gold for it. What's not to like about that? Only thing that sucks about it right now is that it takes a long time, but the "Sell Excess Items" button would fix that. This kind of "Sell Excess Items" button system is used in many games and it works like a charm. I don't see the point in trying to come up with something more complex and unique unless there is some kind of issue with "Sell Excess Items" button. Simple is always the best imo.
Good point. I think it best not to discuss "normals and crazies", as I believe many of our forum members (self included) may be considered tainted in that regard. "You spend how much time playing computer games?!?"
No, you do not get rid of crap items. You get rid of some very nice things even legendary. Why would you say that you take away control? It can be said about every nerf or removal of an option in game. But you do it with almost every single developer decision. You do not make games to have more options or control. You make games to be fun. Fun for enough players, so the game would have a chance on market. So if it means that a few hoarders would go somewhere else because they could not get more than 9 same weapons... well, bad luck. Any game can have bazillions of options and give a lot of control to a player. Any change in such game you would protest as "taking control away" or limiting a player. This is pointless and hiders game development. Sometimes you need to remove control, options and possibilities, so the game would be less complicated, flawless and give more fun without micro-management. Why would I *ever* want to hit a button to sell excess items if it could be done automatically? Lets say I am not alone and a lot players are *forced* to click a button every week or so. I prefer to make tough decision and move forward instead. Let's say that the game was designed from the beginning my way - you cannot get excess items. But you can add such option, right? If you add such option, and then decide that it was a bad idea, then you would cry that developers "take control away" when they decide to revert the patch change? Imagine this scenario: After a few months we have 5 patches with a 100 new items each. So we have like 500 new items. Lets assume, we get 30 legendary items within that pool. How would you set the probability to get them? For example there is a new legendary item you would like to get very much. But since we have 500 more items and 30 more legendaries, your chances to get a particular item (even one copy) decrease a lot with every patch. You would be getting all the items we have now over and over. And then you will understand why selling "excess" items can be frustrating. If you set probability to get new items higher, then it would be bad for people aiming to find an old item! Now imagine the same scenario, but you do not want to get Legendary but some uncommon or rare item. You would need to sell a lot of junk to get your hands on it. And by replacing excess item with a new one, you would not even know about that. You would just see an item drop. OK, people after a while could wonder why they don't get common boots anymore and they have three of everything. But it is not a limitation. It is just another approach. With my idea provided above, veterans would get more chance to find items from the new sets. So decks would develop at about the same rate whether you are a beginner, casual experienced player or everyday addict. Maybe you do want to have less chance to find items from new decks but I doubt it. Sir Veza, you are correct, there is no need to call people names - you just can aim to please majority or a group with some influence in the game. And treat minority wishes as not that important or even as a bad idea.
