{suggestion} how to retain players

So we've discussed how to make this game more popular. Submitting your review on steam is an awesome way. As is timing a new expansion release with a "steam sale bundle", etc.

But what about retaining players? I've been hearing it more and more how most builds at high elo or "meta" builds are basically the same must-win concotions. Yes i've also been guilty of it myself, running two vibrant pain BJSS dwarves or something similar, with a healing / mass frenzy human priest. I did it to give my guild increased chance of winning pizza.

But no more. I'm playing what I enjoy playing, and that includes elf wizards, even if it means my win rate goes down (gasp!), or ELO drops.

I'm going to smile as I lose to these meta builds, because I know I am playing something far more...something that I thought of, using my brain, and my cool items. But more importantly, I'm going to feel good knowing i'm not running such builds anymore, because I truly feel that this is what is scaring away potential long-term CH players...that they might have their own unique builds featuring elf wiz, etc... and having to face a blind rage mass frenzy dwarf flying into their face for 8 damage from nowhere...its made me want to give up this game on several occassion.

But since it can be hard for all of us to have self control NOT to run such builds, I hope we can explore other options>? Like what about one month / week where there are no guild prizes? I.e your results don't contribute to guild rewards?

Ideally certain nerfing cards / items could also help prevent or limit player greed, but that will take some time.

 

I think that's a very intriguing idea! It's kind of there already since beginning of the month Guild losses don't have as much effect as end of the month losses. Often times I'll run "interesting" builds the first week of the month because I know the points that could be lost have plenty of time to be made up. However it could be very interesting to have months where only three weeks count towards the guild season and one week is completely uncounted entirely! I've also considered making one month a vacation month for our Guild specifically, where the guild takes a month off from attempting to win and simply goes crazy playing whatever is fun, though I've never actually done it.

 

I personally like both of your ideas though I do realize that it would fall on the indivual players/guilds. In any multiplayer game though, there will always be some form of compition, "OP builds" and the what not. For me personally, it's all about having fun and if your out to be competive then build competive builds! I don't have the time or patience myself to build competive teams but I also find it facinating to actually get to see some of these builds be played and maybe adapt some of them into my own game play.

In any case though, on the competive side of things, I do agree with both ideas though I'm sure others may not like that idea and some others may even get salty over it but the truth of the matter is that CH is just like any other game out there...it's a game! nothing more nothing less. Nothing personal toward anyone just stating MHO.

 

As someone who has dropped their involvement in the game from somewhere between 20-50 games (sometimes more) a day to about 3 (if that, next to 0 on the weekends), this is something I've been pondering a lot.

I always thought, when I used to run a guild, that there should be 10 30-day seasons, with 6-day breaks in between each season. These breaks would not count towards guild standings, and you would also have the ability to queue up for casual matches in that period. This is because those six days would be on the next season's maps, so one could test and try things out without stress that they would be causing any harm to any sort of rankings. The other five or six days left over? A holiday season or something special, like a special league or tournament.

As for the builds, I've always thought item restriction in multi-player was a good one: either in the total number of copies of an item or card you could have on a character or for an entire build, AND/OR in that certain cards or items would be restricted each season (no burst season, no silver season, or even something more specific, if desired). Hell, make one month a peasant-only season. It would force fresh game play every 30 days or so, players would be faced with something new more often. You'd also get to use more of that expansive keep you have.

I'd also make the map collections for each month bigger, to allow for greater diversity in where you play: I can't tell you how many times this month, for example, I've played the same map multiple times in a row. That's like 6 in a row, or 8 out of 10. That's not fun.

Just some thoughts from the quirky guy that's getting pretty bored/fed up/disinterested in the game. I mean, I don't even have an April Fool's Day build this year. Was no interest to even attempt to make one. So, take these ideas as you will.

 

"If all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail."
I would prefer to solve this problem less through restrictions and more through creative inclusion. (political persuasions being revealed)
1) More constructed leagues that address the particular concerns listed above: no burst allowed, no silver, only elf mages allowed, etc.
2) More items that broaden and answer any spamming in multiplayer. Evensong seemed to broaden strategies and create its own problem.
3) More card ideas and subsequent items. I appreciated the answer that Ready To Strike attempted to provide to Vengeance.
4) More balance changes. Hopefully, with the new single player content for Mitternacht we might hope for some balance changes to forms as well.
5) More single player campaign content, (perhaps crowdsourced) more frequently. With a few more capabilities in the creator we mapmakers could easily craft you new single player content that could be a blessing. We'd probably need a few more tools for monster creation and even...card creation. It would be a great way to playtest.
6) More publicity: Ads. Booths. Incentives. Cardhunter board game in real life.
7) More multiplayer map changes more frequently.
8) More aloyzo's arsenal items more frequently. Somebody pay @Flaxative some money to do this! He says he does it in his free time, I believe. This is very charitable of him. But I think those contests are a key way to keep player base around and involved and to keep the meta evolving.

But with all of these they require capital. If I were Blu Manchu I would lean on the wonderful community we have here in-game and on-forum to incentivize investment for more content.

In sum, all I have is creativity and a little time and a little spending cash so every problem looks like it could be solved through those things.

As far as multiplayer builds go: @gulo gulo try out some new builds. @Christofff play your favorite build. Triple Elf vamp is my favorite but I have about 50 builds in the keep that I play...thus my rating.

 

I'd rather not play than use character types I don't find fun or enjoyable to use. And since it takes me two max damage wizards to out-damage one greater heal priest, there's not much of anything to use these days. Oh well. I don't know how leagues and single player expansion improves the multiplayer experience, but go for it, I suppose.

And for the record, using 5-10 different builds every month to find one that was successful (usually in the last few days of a month, and then it's back to square one) wasn't much more fun than the current situation. I suppose it's just back to max control, everyone's favorite, and I'll deal with all the comments that I'm the one ruining the game because I don't want to use non-handicap dwarves and greater heal priests all day. C'est la vie.

 

In others words simply put: MORE CONTENT.

 

Honestly, I do not understand why so many people have problems with meta builds. There's always going to be a strategy more effective or powerful than the rest. Of course people are going to seek out ways to win. Isn't it more fun to invent and innovate your own builds that can stand their own against these highly refined, powerful builds rather than pitting them versus some more awkwardly put together one?

Nevertheless I do like the idea of casual days. Without the call for guild contribution people might be more inclined to play other modes of the game like Peasant or Co-op PvP.

 

Some days ago someone told me that i have no skill( i drew about 3 bless early rounds) and rely on the spam bless to win. Well, the meta builds use vengance, bless, heals, flying dwarf, AoA, etc... So i decide try something diferent. For a few days i run 2 elf warrios and a dwarf wizard, no vengance, no greater heal spam, no AoA, no flying dwarves and no bless and in more than 20 games i lost a very few of them and been in earlys 1800.

There are strategies there that works fine verus popular strategies. I think that is not a problem of items its more a problem of imagination.
Still i not find a good reason to not play bless but at the same time it not a must to win.

 

Do most people have the inventory you have to "use their imagination" to over come the easy to build meta builds you've just listed and somehow win out over decks that feel like you're fighting the same character for 50+hp? (aka the pure greater heal priest simply out heals all damage your all dps comp can do?).

You, are a guild leader with an impressive inventory, most don't have what you have, for those who lack the cards you lack, it can be a bit more challenging to be as "creative" as you, and still not lose 8/10 games. It shouldn't have to be like that.

Take a note from League of Legends (which isn't perfect). When a champion in LOL becomes meta, aka very easy to win with, aka over powered, aka PLAYED MORE THAN THE OTHERS, aka has a high win rate, the next patch that champion is tweaked to keep them in line with other champions.

this doesn't mean that LOL doesn't have a meta, it does, but it's meta pool is LARGE and leaves MANY OPTIONS for VALUABLE gameplay. CH's current meta is VERY limited, either you have it or you don't, Take Final Sword for example. And if you don't have it, it becomes VERY hard to succeed for most players. When things are this limited, its more a "do or die" situation, people have to pick meta or lose, few like you and I have the inventory to get around being forced to go meta and still succeed.

I suggest we nerf some cards, tweak some settings so that MORE CARDS BECOME VALUABLE/RELIABLE. Think of it like a Pyramid, if you cut off the top, suddenly the new top is a LOT wider.

 

Not even when i start playing lose 8 of 10, i dont think than anyone lose that badly. And yes i have an impresive inventory, but still lacking some strong legendaries like pathom pain and no, i dont think that one must have strong vengance items to be at least 1600+ not even a big legendary colection.

Someone told me that i cheat after he plays most of his cards and i counter after a lot of players can do a lot better the less greedy they become and pass more.

Vengance its strong but not almost broken like burrft was. It gives chances to counterplay.

 

I disagree that inventory limits deckbuilding options. I mean obviously it does but I believe it is possible for someone without a huge collection to innovate non-meta builds that still work well. Case in point, currently I am running triple battle mages in ranked, wizards filled to the brim with Big Zaps and all sorts of defenses. They duke it out in melee with warriors and have the occasional long range spell to pressure opposing normal wizards. It's fun. It's not meta. It's innovative. It doesn't have control cards. It's stable in the low 1600s. And it doesn't have a single legendary. I don't think item availability is an excuse to not be able to make decent innovative decks.

 

Absolutely. So to clarify, for me its about three main things.
1. That meta builds make use of lazy yet hard to beat strategies, which are universally strong.

2. No one should have to make a build just to counter specific builds, because then that build is generally gonna be weak against the rest of the field. And even then, because its a negative build you might not hit those cards you need to defeat the very matchup you built it for!! I"ve seen this when burfft ran rampant, I tried builds with 12 or more purging burst and still didn't draw them until round 3or 4 sometimes, too late!!

So now for instance, to beat bless and martyr's blessing, what do you do? Do most agree, that the best strategy, is to run volcano to counter bless, and destructive purge / purging burst for martyr's? But generally volcano is not so strong now not with more experienced players / vanguard / tk etc. So it is generally weak. So you have diluted your build just counter a card, which may or may even appear in the course of the game! Similarly for purging burst and even destrucitve purge, and particularly, the items they are on, which are pretty weak on the whole besides.

Alternatively you could run control wiz for countering bless, and just try to move them off it once cast, that's decent strategy, but then you still need to build with a control wiz in mind, which limits your build flexibility.

3. When you beat someone with an original build instead of the same ol same ol, they don't feel so bad, and also don't feel greasy. Feeling greasy to losing to yet another merciless meta build is what will undermine potential lovers of this game, such as Gulo Gulo and i'm sorry to hear
On the other hand, I beat someone recently with a Tasty, Tasty build!, and he asked me about the staff, and seemed genuinely impressed. So they don't feel so greasy, and they want to learn more about the game, win-win!

Nice. But unfortunately, you are the exception

 

That's what it is! Its that meta builds reduce Cardhunter to a formula. Move warrior, keep priest behind, use endless heals on warrior as they kill enemy character, rinse, repeat (or even cast bless / martyrs too, for fun). Cast MF, attack with nimble striking dwarves to the weakest character first and/or hold victory squares, rinse, repeat.

Formulas are boring. 1 + 1 =2, but does that apply to every situation?

Mixtures are fun. A cup of coffee is a mixture; some days you might want to add more sugar, other days more milk!

I don't want Cardhunter to become a formula, I want it to become a mixture.

 

I never spoke of vengeance, I feel like you're deflecting from the point of my message. It confuses me. I wonder why you harp on vengeance when I haven't spoke on a single card yet.

So what you're saying is you agree? and that it Obviously does?

Okay but you have a HUGE inventory, how many are rares? epics, how many of each epics? can lower leveled players have the same wands you're using? Not everyone has a HUGE collection.

 

Glad a few understand and realize whats happening. Gulo Gulo is the small minority of those who will speak up as they slowly stop playing this game because "another merciless meta build" bores the hell out of them. 90% of my 33 player friend list has simply left, or sign on once a day for lf and then thats it, a good number of them due to the reasons in this thread.

Options should not be "either build meta or feel greasy". Its tiring. its boring. It feels like MTG if people ignored all colored decks but black and white for 80% of your games.

 

You use final sword as example... If not vengance AoA them?. Im not native speaker and maybe getting worng.

 

I never says that the meta its super diverse, but saying that its be meta or die its also untrue. They are using solid and ptoved strategies but there like in chess all hit of miss have to be discovered.
If i enter a match thinking its another meta build there i am half defeated.
Its a dhame that players leave the game but like mtg are metas but that doesnt mean they can be changed. At least i think that there its room for inovation.

 

Happy to hear you got the melee wizards to work. I could only do it with 3 Heartrippers, and then only on huge maps where I could escape. So, they worked for three whole weeks, which is my personal record for build viability length.

One day, I'll find a three wizard build that might be viable more than one map rotation. That would be nice. No worries.

 

Would love to see it one day in multiplayer.