Is Card Hunter game designed to prevent pay to win?

Wow! Looking at the cost of items in gold, and the real money to buy pizza, and the pizza/gold exchange rate, I will probably stop playing Card Hunter after it releases. It assume that money will decide who's strong and who's not. Or am I wrong in my assumption? Is the Card Hunter to prevent pay to win?

 

So far I've not hit a single paywall and the stuff in the shop is randomly designated. Also considering that no matter how good your cards if you play like an idiot you will get owned like an idiot I'd say they've done pretty well preventing the pay to win from ever rearing it's ugly head. That said I don't PvP but I'm Wozarg and those who do would agree with me

 

I don't think there is a pay wall in Card Hunter. Not that I've seen. I've got some really good loot from simply playing the game. Sure, you could speed up the process by paying real money to unlock bunches of chests... but why not just play the game instead? You'll have to in order to complete the adventures and to level up anyways.

That said, I'm going to end up buying at least 600 pizza for the figures I want and the special maps. I am tempted to join the Club for a year but not at the current prices. Those need some serious tweaking.

 

It is true that you can advance and smooth out your progression both in MP and SP by buying pizza, but it certainly isn't going to just win you games.

I get asked quite frequently, if I've bought any pizza. I've not spent a single slice on chests since the reset. I have spent pizza on Club Membership, the Treasure Hunt maps, and 1 Starter Shop Party. Additionally, of the 11 Legendaries that I've obtained, only 2 of those were from Club Membership. Further illustrating that buying pizza only accentuates the players experience and do not dictate who wins or loses. It's my opinion that, Blue Manchu has done a fine job of preventing pay to win.

 

It doesn't really feel anything like a pay2win game to me. I've only played for about 2 days so far though. The game seems to be designed to encourage people to actually play the game instead of finding shortcuts. The pay aspect of the game seems to reward players who want to contribute money in the sense that they get better rewards as they play, or get more cosmetic options for their party.

The only outright paywall I've seen so far would be the Treasure Hunt modules which require pizzas to unlock. That seems more like premium content than an artificial game design paywall though. Similar to DLC bonus missions you can pay for many other retail games.

 

There is not a single pay to win but there is pay to rush progression which rubs me a little the wrong way with the epic chests. That said i challenge you to beat me by spending less than a 1000$ as i spend 10$ and play for a week.

 

When we've discussed this before, we brought up points like these:

For real-world money, you can get more items. Randomly. This random assortment may give you AMAZING ITEMS YOU'VE NEVER SEEN right at the start of the single-player game, sure; but random chests often give items with talent costs that prevent you from equipping them on your characters anyway. Same with starter packs, really, though they aren't random. You are required to play and level up (and earn talents), and thus you are encouraged to use your money strategically. You are less likely to "win" by throwing your wallet at the screen.

For real-world money, you can get in-game money. This means you can afford AMAZING HIGH-LEVEL GEAR of exactly the right talent cost so you can use them on your characters at the start of the game. However, items in the stores are still random; and even more, the prices of items above your level are straight-out multiplied by the level difference. To buy an "amazing overpowered item of game-ruination" right at the beginning, you first must be lucky enough to see it in the store, and then you have to have absolutely no understanding of money's value.

In sum, really, you are encouraged to use your money strategically, because you can't just guarantee that a certain amount of money will let you "win." I'm still a bit uncomfortable with the "Club rewards" thing, since it's the most in-your-face example (tempting you to think that money lets you "win"), but even it conforms to the principles of randomness and "you have to understand strategy to use the rewards in the first place"-ness.

 

Melvin is without a doubt the hardest one

 

Melvin would agree with you.

 

I...completely disagree - I find the club to be the LEAST pay-to-win. For chests you can pour in as much money as you'd like to get as many items as you'd like without doing a thing, but for CH club you still have to win and EARN the items.

 

Hardness doubted! Melivn is good, but he's no worse than Amy!

 

I really like the club tbh.
A voluntary subscription with an acceptable cost, instead of just the knowledge of more money spent = more power in the game.
The subscription model sets a bar. I can see what the game is going to cost, if I am to enjoy the game with the feeling I'm on a sorta fair playing field.

Sure you can still buy chests, but personally I'll be staying away from them. Rubs me in the wrong way. And I think a lot of people feels that way about "free2play" games with obvious money sinks. The club clearly shows that it's not really a free2play, but there is a suggested set price for playing the game. And that's much easier for me to accept.

 

Well that's interesting, Runan. It helps drive home the point that different people will interpret the setup from different perspectives.

 

I'm still not too keen on the club's price.

 

But as far as getting your money's worth, the CH club gives you FAR more loot for your money than anything else. The price of 30 days is equivalent to 2 epic chests. So if, in those 30 days, you get the epic MP chest just 4 times the CH club is better than buying chests.

 

True. To be honest, I wish the club offered me something else besides a bonus item. I definitely want to support Blue Manchu but I also want to get something cool in return. I'm a bit conflicted.