Create your own...

Are there any plans to allow players to create their own adventures? I know one of my favorite parts of PnP gaming was creating an adventure for my friends to try to work through.

Thoughts? Suggestions?

 

There have been some mentions of this. I think there's a lot of interest.

At a minimum, I have a lot of interest. I can't help but think of this as one of the best "draws" for the game. Consider: pencil-and-paper RPG's have DM's, yes. Computer RPG's will (sometimes) have level editors, where you can pretend to be a DM, but really you're just making something for somebody else to play.

I think you might have been talking about including a "level editor." If Card Hunter actually let you be a DM in a computer game . . . that would be astounding. Multi-player is already a "hot idea" for drawing in "today's gamer," and this would be a play mode almost no one else has.

 

Rather like writing your own RPG scenarios, balancing will be an issue, I think.

 

Balancing? Who needs balancing that Red Dragon was supposed to wipe them out over and over!

 

Balance~shmalance, it's about a Challenge!

 

I was thinking of the other extreme, a Monty Haul scenario.

 

Well to combat the dreaded Monty Haul scenario, make it so player made modules are flagged so the treasures there in do not get added to your permanent card pool.

Also, you could have a submissions derby. Players try out the modules made by other players, and the best ranked ones go on to Blue Manchu, who then pick out the ones they like, and make them into actual modules. This prevents people from spamming votes on to monty haul modules, cuz they wont get published. The creator gets a free copy of the module, writers credit, and maybe beta access to new content, or a special forum trophy or avatar.

 

A little tweaking, and that would be cool.

And when it comes to treasure, it could be that loot is given out very sparingly and not at the DM's control. Perhaps it is dependent on a "difficulty level" comparison of character cards (number, rarity, et cetera) and those of the opponents.

 

But if I'm building the module, I am the DM and if I want to have a pile of gold 10ft high guarded by 1 kobold with a bad leg, then I should be able to do that. Conversely, 1 ancient red dragon sitting on 10cp is also allowable. Everyone who has DM'd a game has hit both of those extremes at some point.

That's the issue with 'home brewed' modules / dungeons, even if you're using some sort of MonsterMark, the temptation to fiddle with the results is pretty natural.

 

Without knowing what rewards are available to a character or account, it's hard to say what the positives or negatives with creating adventures in either direction. Battleforge allowed you to gain some cards via the main storyline campaign. They also had player made content that didn't reward you cards, but they gave upgrade tokens I believe. Although, the player made stuff was submitted to the devs for them to have a Map-of-the-Week sort of deal. Battleforge is definitely a game where they wanted you to spend money on boosters and such, so that is a little different.

If the game is fun and challenging enough, it's possible we don't really need any sort of reward that would develop our character -- when it comes to player-made adventures. Maybe they'll come up with an ingenious way of doing it, but human nature will lead some people to exploit whatever they can.

 

EverQuest 2 is coming out with an interesting player made concept. I'm sure you've read about it. They give the dungeon a difficulty rating and award based on that rating. Like Battleforge, I think they are rewarding people with tokens rather than real loot. While I personally think tokens "work", it's just not the same effect as a real piece of loot.

And I agree that you don't need this at launch. My wife and I would rather a whole slew of official campaigns and adventures to play ( and pay for of course! ).

 

There's a builder for Star Trek Online too, which gives good results by all accounts. I too agree that we should walk before we can run - let's get into the adventures and swash some buckles!

 

I would be quite interested in this feature as well, although I agree that it doesn't need to happen just at release when we'll be busy with the original content. I've been thinking about how to balance the quality of player-made maps.

1. The first plan isn't even my own idea, it's straight from Jon's interview with RPS. (link to article)

Point: I assume that the map creator for players would be along the lines of "drag & drop stuff onto a grid." In that case each monster would have a standard deck and also a standard loot drop. Think about it: players want to customize their own decks by lovingly choosing each skill or equipment; even a dedicated fan might balk at individually fitting out an army of 20 goblins. As long as our treasure comes mostly from defeating monsters, and those monsters are essentially alike on all maps, then whether I beat up 3 Malevolent Fairies and 2 Dwarf Ogres in a Blue Manchu map or a player's map, I have rightfully earned the same treasure.

Counterpoint: You will find a big difference between fighting 20 goblins one at a time vs. all in a pile. Balancing is placement of monsters as well as their numbers.
Response: Granted monster grouping matters, but that misses the point I think. You don't win treasure by beating an entire map, easy or hard. You win treasure by defeating monsters and the number of monsters killed is the pile of loot you get.

2. Link level building to higher-level account privileges. And by higher-level accounts, I mean accounts that have developed their characters to a certain level, or defeated a certain number of unique dungeons in the original content. I think I would aim at something in the area of 3-4 weeks of average free playing; paying customers presumably reach the mark faster.

Point: Players who have spent some time playing the game are players who have seen how the card mechanics and terrain work together and can use that experience to make good maps. At the same time, the level barrier places an obstacle in the way of those who have no patience for doing things the "right" way and just wanted to make a bunch of exploitative maps to power up their characters. It might prevent almost entirely any scenario where someone signs up, fiddles with the game a little, then disappears while leaving behind a truly awful map nobody wants.

Counterpoint: Just because somebody earns a high level themselves doesn't stop them from making unfairly low-risk, high-reward maps.
Response: No, it doesn't. (Suggestion #1 does.) This is only an obstacle, a deterrent, not an outright stop. The point remains, a player who reaches a higher level knows how maps normally balance and makes an informed choice when making her or his own.

3. Limit the number of player maps per account. Let's say, 1 small or medium map for free accounts to try; paying customers get access to more/bigger slots, but still with some upper limit. Blue Manchu can also establish a "Hall of Fame" so truly outstanding examples don't have to sit on the creator's account forever to be available. Any player can edit or delete their own map and replace it with something new at will.

Point: Players would not want to "waste" their limited number of slots, especially if there are competitive rewards for good designs (player ratings, virtual trophies, maybe even microcurrency credits in an occasional contest) -- and even more especially if they are paying for them! At the same time, those who would make exploitative maps regardless are now limited by a hard cap and shouldn't clog up the servers or the selection menu. As a bonus, Jon & co. have indicated that in serving the free-to-play customers they want to keep as much of the main card game as open as possible while being self-supporting. Account perks such as map-making will be a source of revenue without forcing players to pay up to continue leveling up. Plus it helps Blue Manchu plan ahead to manage server space for player-made offerings.

Counterpoint: Even with a Hall of Fame, you limit those who are brilliantly good just as much as the malefactors.
Response: Sorry, those are the (prospective) rules.

One last thought: I would like to mention that player-made maps could be a great starting point for the community atmosphere Blue Manchu hopes to achieve. How and why do you connect with your fellow Card Hunters? Let's start clans of players who take turns designing and playing each others' maps. After all, how many times in a row can one defend Woodhome from approaching undead before declaring it a lost cause? In a "Challenge of the Week" clan you can always find a new mission. Yes, I'm sure Blue Manchu will have regular content releases and I hope to play all of them, but with the player community at work we can get even more new maps that much faster.

 

Now let me add a bonus idea:

Let players stock maps with their own surplus loot.

My previous post was mostly ideas on how to set up player-made content to be fair and balanced among everyone. This is an idea to let content be clearly differentiated. It also gives us something to do with all our leftover items besides putting them up for auction. This idea encourages would-be mapmakers to keep going on adventures or to buy equipment out of the cash store; either would likely be a positive for Card Hunter. The loot-stocking plan even takes two distinct, non-exclusive forms.

Loot Plan 1: Customize the monsters. As discussed above, my vision for a player map-making utility would drag and drop standardized monsters into a setting. The general idea is that each monster works like an extra-large card suite, so that by picking "Lame Kobold" or "Ancient Red Dragon" you always know what cards are in the monster's deck. This is a great shortcut for designers of all levels. But it gets kinda predictable at times. Now suppose a map maker could drop one or two (or twelve) items out of his or her own inventory to replace the defaults. The player slaughters 19 Cowardly Goblins all armed with Pointy Sticks without even breathing hard, only to turn the corner and meet one who has a Wand of Mega-Fireballs. In my plan, changing the equipment does NOT change the default loot drop -- otherwise Lame Kobolds armed with Supreme Swords of Slaying would spread that weapon across the world with no regard to its intrinsic rating value.

The key idea is that you can't replace at will, you can only use items from your inventory. I envision this as a sort of loot sink where you can put stuff in but can't get it back out again. The inventory slot count is presumably small enough that players will not change every default for every monster. A player may be surprised by one or two items but is still battling a known quantity.

If it is allowed for players to edit their maps at will, potentially adding some items at first, acquiring more, adding those, etc., it may be desirable to implement some other limit on stocking monster inventories -- a cap on number of changes per monster, and/or number of changes on the whole map. To repeat, a player may be surprised by one or two items but is still battling a known quantity.

Loot Plan 2: Treasure chests. For a while now, I've written using the assumption that the bulk of loot acquired comes from defeating the monsters individually rather than the map as a whole. So is there no reward for perseverance? There can be if a map creator is allowed to create treasure choices either in chests at specific points or as rewards for completing a map.

Again, the key point is that creators use items out of their own inventories. Unlike customizing monsters, where I specified that items would permanently attach to the monster and not show up in loot drops, this plan gives actual equipment to whomever claims it. Think of it just like an auction with the price paid in adventuring toil rather than gold. So I make a map, and throw a whole bunch of the stuff that I don't need into the treasure chest behind the boss -- for example, 3 Puppeteer's Headbands, 2 Unwieldy Harpoons, and 10 Broken Bottles. The first three people to defeat the boss and claim a reward get a nice item, the next two get an okay item, the the next ten get a cruddy item. The next four, unfortunately, get nothing. Then I log in again and restock the map with more surplus stuff and the next three each get a Ring of Healing, and so on. No new treasure is generated by this scenario, only existing treasure is put back into circulation and in theory overall game balance is preserved.

Obviously, this second plan is still sketchy. Maybe it needs some sort of default reward based on some calculation of a map's difficulty so that latecomers aren't stuck with all work and no gain. It definitely suggests a need to sort maps according to what treasure is offered, and probably a block on more than one player using a given map at a time, so that I don't start an adventure looking to get Gold Armor only to find I was beaten to the punch and I only got a few coppers.

 

There was some pretty exciting thinking in all of that. The fact that it makes so much sense so quickly makes me feel player-made content could really be a thing here.

Your second post, mightymushroom, seems less sound than the first. It would require careful consideration to get any of that in. But if I abbreviate your first post:

. . . Many of these elements could exist concurrently and be very fun. We know for a fact that there's such a thing as "an Ogre deck," which says that card suite setups apply to monsters just as they do to equipment. Thus, drop in an Ogre, and it will have "Stunning Bash." Point 1 makes for a great start on equalizing maps.

But does the aforementioned Ogre have "Stunning Bash" because it holds a weapon, or because it uses its fists? We know that Kobolds can be "Miners" and, presumably, "Not-Miners," so do they vary because they are holding actual equipment? It's wholly possible that the player would get to customize elements on each piece.

Moving on, point 3 is probably just a good idea. Websites will often link player accounts to "the player's personal X," and each person gets exactly one "X." Here, as you say, perhaps an "X," a "Y," and a "Z" per account. Given the already-discussed possibility of Card Hunter staff reviewing maps, having some central repository (not necessarily as grand as a "Hall of Fame") for all approved maps means that players can continue to create maps past their "limit" so long they're not stupid.

And I guess you could include point 2 anyway. People will still pay money to throw out pointless maps shaped like a swastika, so it won't stop much. But everyone would understand why the rule exists.

 

Well, there was a reason other than sheer length that I made two different posts. I cannot truly claim orgination for any of the three ideas in the first post. I took the idea of limiting maps to X many per account from Roblox (www.roblox.com), which is built around user-generated content and the model seems to work very well for them. I borrowed the idea to limit user-generated content to users with a certain amount of experience from the website of Nation States (www.nationstates.net). The idea is that players learn by example and won't spam the moderators with junk submissions; you would have to ask them to find out how well it works.

The second post would make more sense if I had first explicitly stated my ideas/assumptions with regard to the player economy. This is my personal speculation only. 1) One of the design principles is that new card suites (=items) drop directly from monsters. 2) Since you build your deck off monster drops rather than blacksmith purchases, item drops are as likely as or even predominant over currency drops. 3) Common items are, well, common. You get a lot more of them than you want or need. Even rares can be "surplus to requirements" when they don't fit the strategy you've crafted for your party.

Most games invite you to exchange items for currency either by way of an NPC shop or by way of an auction to other players. I am assuming that the first C in CCG is a big part of Card Hunter and the auction house will be quite busy. But now you have a pocketful of gold or whatever the currency is called, and what to do with that? Other games have some sort of currency sink to prevent wild inflation -- but because in most games currency dominates the economy. From my assumptions about loot drops, I don't believe that gold necessarily constitutes the bulk of loot in Card Hunter.

Thus I suggest user-generated maps as one way to "sink" items without first changing them to currency. Players get a unique and hopefully fun mechanic to customize their maps, while the developers have a novel mechanism for potentially unwanted items to become useful again. The monster customization plan is really great in this regard. Kobold Miners normally wield pickaxes; now you can tell a story about a colony of Kobolds that is 'experimenting' with new weapons AND get rid of ten Unwieldy Spears Harpoons at the same time.

Whether this proves useful really depends on how closely my assumptions match the actual economy of Card Hunter, and also what other metagame mechanics might account for surplus items. I picked Unwieldy Spear Harpoon because we know it has 33% drawbacks and seems like a card that is useful but quickly outgrown as you advance: this is a card suite that might be hard to sell to other players. It would boil down to an economic decision whether players find more value in auctioning unused items or "spending" them for creative expression on maps.

 

I am all for both the "Stocking the map with your own loot" and "Having the community vote on and the Devs elevate the best modules" ideas.
Assuming that this game eventually develops a Cash Shop type affair, the tools/rights to create custom maps and even distributable loot packs could probably be found there. I wouldn't be above paying a little extra for my shot at creating a module.

 

I've said before, I think player made content is a vary good way to go considering this is a game with a setting similar to D&D.

Most games that have done player made content use a scale that weights the amount of difficulty and puts in a value based on that you can use to place treasure in your mod. There are of course ways the games restricting loot. You won't be able to put one monster in each of 20 rooms then give the heros one single item of value equal to all 20 monsters. That isn't to say you couldn't put 5-7 monsters in each of 4 rooms and give them some lesser quality items that value 30% of the monsters and one nice pair of boots. Systems like this give nearly all creative freedom to the Mod creator while still retaining multiplayer balance. If someone created a room with 20 monsters that is nearly impossible to beat you can usually rate it low and others will stay away.

Another way to do it is separate player created content onto their own area so they do not interfere with the normal game server. This generally gives players complete freedom to produce things the CardHunter staff don't have time to think up, but it doesn't mean player champagnes couldn't do this with the slight reward filter described above. It does mean, however, that a more natural D&D champagne where you don't always get loot could be produced properly.