Apparently, trading is controversial

I love this idea.

I'm tempted to suggest that "pick a specific card" might be a nice place to draw the line between free and paid. i.e. The current random weekly shops work as they stand, but the multiplayer shop has *everything* for equivalent pizza. If Randimars has Magic Monkey Boots for 100 gold, and you get 5 gold for 1 pizza the way you do right now, then the mystical market has it for around 20 pizza.

The only problem with anything remotely like this is that it would have the "pay to win" mafia in hysterics, even though you're technically just buying time (everything should be in Randimars *eventually*). I'm actually not sure that you can actually satisfy a competitive contingent without enabling pay-to-win.

By the way, it's not just "cards you don't have". Many optimal builds will have 3 of one weapon or arcane item, or the same boots on all three characters even in a perfectly balanced system, and competitive players won't have the luxury of non-optimal builds. If the balance is off-kilter, you might see parties with anywhere up to 9 of the overpowered weapon/item.[/quote]

 

Unfortunately I don't think Path of Exile is a good comparison since it uses a very unique economy system. Card Hunter is using the more traditional earn gold/items for playing, while also selling gold/items (via Pizza trade in at least). Since it's also a free to play game, it gets very tricky to avoid potential issues for the developers from trading. Most of these types of games (free to play collectible) have been avoiding it so far, instead focusing on the ability to trade your cards back in.

 

I agree about the pay to win crowd, but not sure what you do about them anyway.

And yeah, the way teams/items work had occured to me too. Even right now, 2 fighters is pretty popular. You could easily want to build them the same. 3 wizards all wanting the same arcane item would be absurd (12 of an item). I don't think it'll get that bad, but you'll clearly want multiples of many items.

 

My problem with being able to pay real money for specific items though is that it makes the only viable way to competitive to be to pay money (This is the literal definition of "pay-to-win", btw). All the "competitive" players will pay money and be using "perfect" decks, with 4+ copies of legendary items, which is almost impossible to pull off without paying money.

Crafting makes those items available to competitive players (and they can pay huge sums of money to get 4+ of a single legendary, if they want) while still providing a path to those items for players who want to earn the items, or don't want to spend as much money.

 

I don't disagree with what you're saying, but I think a more direct option is a better return in gold when you sell items (something else I pointed out as an issue). That would at least give people a chance to afford what showed up in the rare store.

 

Ok, so I think there are two different ideas in play here, one of which I completely agree with you on, and the other I don't.

If there is to be any competitive scene, the competitive players will need access to all the cards. I don't know if BM are interested in cultivating a competitive scene, but unequal access to cards would invalidate any scene. Just imagine a tournament where one guy just has twice as many cards as anyone else. That's not interesting for anyone.

So as long as there's *any* way to get specific cards, I'm quite happy on this front. I don't really care about the mechanism, as long as it's possible and practical.

The other question is on the pay-to-win front. I don't really see the big deal either, but I understand there are different opinions. Someone who spends more time than you has better cards, and no-one seems to care, but someone with more money than you has better cards and people get really upset. I don't really care whether people got their cards from a store or a box, as long as it's a fun match, and that depends on the matchmaking system, not the economy.

 

The thing about "pay to win" is the same button that gets pressed in the "20 wins in PvP". It's a measure of reward against time, in that no-one minds that you have ground out your cards by constant playing of the game, even if you end up with you full set of moxes, but Bing Oxnard with a bag of cash having bought the same deck does not get the same level of respect, for obvious reasons.

 

The whole "pay to win" crowd has more or less died down in Duel of Champions (though they do seem to have been replaced with "this game costs how much!?!" threads). I've always felt that was one of the reasons developers wanted to implement collectible games in the free to play model.

 

I agree with Neurofalcon that secure enough trading system will seem more like crafting system than trading system. From mechanics standpoint atleast, it can be dressed as wished.

As for OT discussion, competitive play will probably need some limited format. Something like MtG drafts or sealed deck tournaments. Or alternatively fully decked accounts for tournament participants.

 

Please don't allow trading. It will only promote multi-accounts and bots. More harm than good.

 

I think that trading is not for Card Hunter.
Yes, you are unable to buy specific items... But if you could, then getting a cool legendary as a random drop would lose much of it's excitement.
I like the current system - play more, you will get more cards and eventually have almost everything. Join the club, and it will probably happen faster.
And for casual playing trading is not needed IMHO

 

No offense, but this thread is an echo chamber. I think trading would be great in Card Hunter because it allows for me to interact with my friends who also play the game. Take for instance, a legendary weapon drops, but I won't ever equip it due to having a better item setup already. If "Oh, you have a legendary sitting around, that's really cool, can I try it out? No."

I've read all of the reasoning against trading. I think you should look beyond Blizzard and D3 for inspiration. Look at Scrolls, for instance. The cards are much more reasonably priced and gold is earned in ~50-350 increments as a reward for playing a game. The rare cards are worth around a booster pack (1000g), which is what the market decided to charge. However, it's not a random price. The developers suggested 1000g with their own in game shop where rare cards may be purchased individually for that same market price.

Card Hunter will be missing something without the ability to trade. Stop looking at bad examples, and start looking at good ones.

 

The only reason that Scrolls looks like a "good" example is because it's brand new - it's only been out for 3 weeks. People haven't had enough time yet to get multiple copies of every card in the game. But once people DO reach that point, the value of cards is going to drop very, very quickly.

Common cards are already almost worthless - they're currently in the 50g-75g range, with uncommons between 150 and 250. These prices are slowly going down. In a few months, they'll be worth vendor price (25g and 50g respectively).

We're using those games as examples because what we're talking about is what happens to games with these economies OVER TIME. Check what the cards in Scrolls are worth a few months from now, and then let us know if you still think it's a good model.

 

It's still a good example. You forget that there are gold sinks in Scrolls which don't exist in Card Hunter. I rarely spend my gold in CH because nothing has been worth buying. Common cards are just that, common. Of course they will be very easily obtained. I don't have every card in Scrolls, so I still spend gold constantly.

Most traders have multiple copies of every card already and that's a good thing for the economy. That means that the competitors have a chance against each other since cards are widely available. In Card Hunter, cards are not widely available, and thus much of the campaign is arbitrarily difficult based on what equipment you have which is currently based on luck and being a club member. Deck building should not be luck based, nor p2w.

The inflation/deflation of value comes from not removing currency from the market effectively.

I'm just saying, if the devs want to avoid trading, they better have the absolute best shop system in the world. And the shops are not very good right now, to be honest. I'm already a bit sick of getting unlucky with chests. Rare treasure is neither rare nor treasured.

 

This right here would be another problem with trading. The people on this game with lots of friends would have an advantage over others without so many. Friends will always help out friends. Meaning, friends would trade epic/legendary gear between each other when needed, which would be unfair for someone who's not so social and is earning everything for themselves.

 

Welcome to reality? How would me trading with my friends negatively affect your gameplay experience? If it was in a competitive environment, then it is a misconception to think you would have obtained everything for your competitive deck by luck.

 

Would you like to join me? Why should more social players get an advantage over not-so-social players? How about you earn gear for yourself instead of being lazy and relying on friends?

Because you and your friends could trade the best gear between each other. You're missing a legendary or two? No worries. Just get it from your friends! And then go beat down someone who doesn't have the best gear because they're actually earning it instead of having it handed to them whenever they want.


Not to mention, as I've already stated, multi-accounts and bots. Is that what you want? A bunch of multis and bots in this game? You want the devs' time to go towards banning accounts instead of developing? Is all that worth being able to trade with your friends?

 

Yes. I highly doubt there will be farmers if it is not profitable. Don't make it profitable by inflating shop prices and giving players no other choices.

Making a great casual multiplayer game into a hardcore solo grind experience is a really bad idea, imo.

Not to mention the lack of trading really detracts from the possible custom campaigns I'm planning on making. I can't give players rewards for completing a campaign I DM, and they don't receive a chest. I can understand not giving a chest, but not allowing me to give a piece of gear or treasure to players for completing a quest limits my possibilities. What if I want to RP a shop keeper prior to a campaign so that my players may be fully equipped to deal with the challenges ahead?

I'm just saying man, no trading is a really bad idea.

 

Instead of implying Fury and his group of friends is somehow inferior to a lone wolf, compare this to the offline card game scene. If you want to get someone into, say, Magic the Gathering, you might build them a deck from your own collection of common/uncommon cards you have no use for anymore. They won't have the best deck around, but they'll at least be able to play. And if you happen to have too many duplicates of a good card, assuming you're a nice person, you'll go ahead and hand them over, one because he's your friend and two because you want someone to play with and to join the game. There are "default" cards for the multiplayer aspect in CH, but it allows for zero customization for a newcomer.

Everyone is not the same. You would do the above as a favor because your friend may not have the money or the incentive to spend money on a game he's never played. Getting him to play is first and foremost more important than the "balance" it brings to the global battleground, see? Once he's into the game, he'll spend his own money and time building his own deck.

Are we likening economies among friends to communism? I don't give my friends everything I own. I especially wouldn't give them the rarest cards/items I have because I want them to trounce their opponent - in a game like this, a single legendary item wouldn't help out a novice, anyway. They'd still be doing most of the work themselves. Do you think that just because a trade system is implemented, every single person that plays in multiplayer would instantly have a full set of legendaries across all characters because, I suppose, traders just have that **** lying around to give away? You're being extremely defeatist.

If someone wants to start a new account, that's their prerogative. The only guarantee they'll somehow get better loot than someone else in comparison to time spent is if they're card club members on both accounts (paying twice as much as a single account holder) and constantly doing treasure hunt missions - giving more money to Blue Manchu - and is that such a travesty? Having two of a rare item? Doesn't that happen enough?

There is also no evidence that botting is even possible, much less able to give someone an advantage. The only thing you should be worried about is the effect on competitive multiplayer, which from my perspective is minimal. If you have any actual evidence to the contrary that supports your argument, please say so. Besides, it's a little foolish to imagine before the fact that the entire development team is going to be spending 8 hours a day banning accounts (and this is assuming it actually DOES create a negative ripple effect).

In short, yes, I'd like to be able to trade. Real world example: I'm trying to get my girlfriend (a huge MtG+D&D fan) to play with me. Instead of forcing her to spend a week or so playing through the campaign before we can have a decent match, I'd like it if I could just give her a bunch of items I'm not going to be using (instead of selling them for 2 gold a piece). It would be more fun for the both of us.

 

I'm sorry, but you either haven't played many online games, or you're delusional. Trading has ruined many, many, MANY games, and Card Hunter wouldn't be an exception.

I just hope the devs are smart enough to see the harm that trading would do to this game and decide not to implement it. Unless, they could come up with their own trading system which would combat the negatives of usual trading systems. I guess time will tell...

Let me stop you right there... This is Card Hunter. It shouldn't be compared to other games. It should stand on its own.

I call bull. Maybe this is absolutely true, though....I don't know....I don't know you. But, what I do know is, there are tons of people who in fact would give out their best gear they had doubles of to their closest friends. Gear, especially epic and legendary, shouldn't be given out, it should be earned.

If trading were allowed, people would make multi-account after multi-account, grind each module for loot, and send it to their main. They would get gear, and gold, faster by cheating. Simple as that.

Evidence? How about the fact that every single online game with a trading system has bots? Card Hunter is the one exception? I don't think so.

Lol. You've just proved my point. Instead of players having to earn their gear like everyone else, why not just allow the gear to be sent to them? Easy peazy lemon squeezy, right?