Done with Card Hunter for now -- Here's some feedback

Personally I'd love to see a mode (as per Sir Vesa and Jarmo posts) where I could play MP strictly against the AI using the PVP boards.

I think its a great way for beginners to learn and experience the ideas behind MP scenarios and would improve new players games to help them from being annihilated in PvP MP matches. But it would also be a fun mode on its own. One of my favorite stages in the campaign is cardstock II for the reason I enjoy this kind of scenario vs the AI. I think it would be a good mode to try experimental builds also.

I completely understand it would need to be another MP mode, either unranked or with a separate ranking to PvP as otherwise it would be too easy to get high MP ratings, but that would not bother me. I play for a fun game not so much my ranking on this mode anyway, but being tanked using an alternative or experimental build is no fun at all. Likewise lower rewards for winning would be fine as it would be easier than PvP

Infact with this mode you might actually see players not resigning in PvP mode as those who may choose to resign PvP matches seeking AI matchups can play this alternative mode instead. This mode then may actually benefit the it the PvP mode

 

We have very few players anyway, no need to divide them.

 

There's a lot on this table.

About the insta-quit stuff: I 100% agree with Blue Manchu's stance on this. Stating something like "I take a chest and go on" might sound fine, but is too single-minded imho. If we want the game to grow, it's paramount that the game offers the best possible experience. Not discouraging insta-quitting might lead to very awkward (and abusable) scenarios, so it's a big no-no to me.

Then we have the SP-players perspective. That's something completely unrelated, tbh, but a very important point. If Blue Manchu wants to offer something to do for this kind of players, then I'm all for them developing something to address this category of players specifically. I see no point in a "play vs AI only" mode, which would serve as a surrogate of a properly crafted experience and could potentially harm the MP ecosystem. I have a feeling Blue Manchu is working on proper end-game content for SP, in a way or the other, so maybe we only need to have some more patience on this one.

Back to the MP related stuff. I actually think offering some minor reward to the losing player would be a very nice addition. This doesn't need to be anything super cool, a normal brown chest (3 items, no minimum guaranteed loot) would be fine I suppose.

The reasoning behind this is simple: both players contribute to the game, and the winning player being the only one rewarded might lead to frustration. This is especially true when we talk very close games, which can go on for 10-15 minutes or possibly longer. Add to that, huge losing streaks probably are one of the worst thing to happen to an avid PvP player, especially if he has not been playing the game for a long time. Not only are you losing rank (which is not a big deal, but often leads to very bad feelings), but you also invested tons of time in the game w/o getting anything tangible out of it.

In short, offering a minimum reward for simply playing a PvP game (and legitimately, i.e. no reward for insta-quitters, as already suggested) would make the whole experience more enjoyable and less daunting/stressful. Furthermore, getting some limited amount of loot from a lost game would also help newer player building a workable collection faster, which can potentially make the MP mode of play more palatable to a broader range of players.

 

Seems like this just wasn't the right game for you. Sorry to see you go.

If the luck of the draw is so critical for you, you might need more practice in creating a build. I don't see how you can project a 3-10 round match from 9 of the 21-63 cards drawn (at a minimum); In my opinion resigning a match in the first 2 rounds is a sign that you are impatient and if that is the case again it might not be the right game for you. I don't see 20 minutes as an average match length in PvP. Anything over 10 minutes I would consider long (as I think my average match time excluding leagues is around 8-9 minutes). But I do remember slower matches when I started.

I agree with the idea of being able to opt out of a bad position, it just takes a few rounds to really know where you stand and you need to learn how to allow the luck to balance out... Sun Tzu had five essentials for victory which can relate to playing a game like this:

1. He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight. (take advantage of good draws stall with bad ones)
   
2. He will win who knows how to handle both superior and inferior forces.
3. He will win whose army is animated by the same spirit throughout all its ranks. (A balanced and predictable deck is superior to one with a big mix of crap and great cards, but great cards are needed and items don't always allow for homogeny)
   
4. He will win who, prepared himself, waits to take the enemy unprepared. (Desperate and Lifesaving block come to mind)
   
5. He will win who has military capacity and is not interfered with by the sovereign. (not really relevant, but having too many rules and restrictions limits the effect of skill)

Again if you enjoy playing PvE you should play PvE, but it seems you have a competitive streak preventing you from enjoying the "lesser rewards" and that is fine. Not all efforts are equally rewarded.

I think the main reason for fewer players is simply exposure. The jump in players after being launched on Kong was significant and a steam client will be even more exposure. In entertainment having the best product is not a guarantee of success, a lot comes from exposure (ads and publicity) because a lot of times people like something because it is popular.

 

Hopefully it would be more about providing extra play options, and extending/keeping the player base rather than dividing the player base. Personally I think its a great game and lots of effort has clearly gone into it, I love the game but having exhausted the SP mode, and only left with a MP mode, I don't really enjoy I would likely leave anyway. If its about keeping the player base or extending it, new modes or options may be needed to push the game forward (this is just my thoughts). I know the program team are hard at developing content and it will be interesting to see what this offers.

It difficult to know what extra modes/options all people would appreciate and would see the player base grow, but I just thought I would offer my personal opinion on what I would like to see added/changed as a player thinking of leaving - this seemed the most appropriate thread

But in any case the point of this thread I believe was people leaving the game as they didn't want to play the current PvP mode in its current state. If no change is made then these people will still leave and that means a diminishing player base anyway.

I would welcome any additional SP content or additions to the current MP mode. I just wanted to add my thoughts really

 

What makes you think it would it divide them? Those who prefer ranked games would play ranked games. Those who don't like playing ranked games could play the same content instead of not playing. People who currently play ranked, but would rather play vs. the AI probably don't play much anyway. I doubt shoe-horning them into a mode they don't like will keep them around long. Some of these may be the ones insta-quitting against human opponents.

With all due respect (and you are due much), I reject the notion of non-ranked being "a surrogate of a properly crafted experience". It is only "properly crafted" for those who enjoy it. It appeals primarily to hardcore gamers who want to study, concentrate, and play mistake-free games. It isn't crafted well at all for those who just want to relax and play for fun.
Whether it "could potentially harm the MP ecosystem" is vague at best. How? Might it drain players from ranked who would rather play unranked? That isn't a bad thing. People should only play games they enjoy playing. I think BM has done a pretty good job of balancing rewards between MP and SP. The real competition they should worry about is not PVP vs. PVE, but Card Hunter vs. other games.
The advantages I see in an unranked version of the PVP boards are:
- It would (I hope) be low hanging fruit to expand PVE play.
- It would give non-hardcore players a low pressure (particularly without a clock) version to play that might lead them back into ranked play.
- It would provide ranked players a simpler initial means of testing builds than casual matches.
- It doesn't offend the tender sensibilities of the AI if someone quits early.

 

I think we're pretty much on the same line, Veza.

All I'm really against is a "AI opponents only" option in regular (ranked) MP mode. People would abuse it (beating the AI, even cheatotron, is much easier than winning vs a human opponent).

Other than that, I'd welcome any game mode, of any kind, letting players of all kind enjoy CH the way they prefer.

I also think non-ranked Matchmaking would be a welcome addition, although I do share some concern about the active players-base being large enough to support multiple MP modes of play.

That's a secondary aspect though, and I do think being able to play MP matches in a more relaxed environment would benefit the overall MP experience a huge deal.

 

I think Veza's idea of an SP module with ranked boards where you play against AI for SP rewards is totally viable in theory.

 

Okay @Bandreus , it sounds like we are on the same page.
I don't favor splitting up MP. The player base actually seems pretty numerous in the middle, but is indeed pretty thin at either end. I hope the EttSC expansion is announced with enough bells, whistles, and confetti to draw a crowd.
Small rewards for playing out a loss might significantly reduce early quitting. I think it's worth a shot, at least. Perhaps it could be announced as a "temporary test" to see how well it works.

 

SP module with ranked rewards would really need improvement to the AI. The melee AI does not handle VP management well at all and is it's main downfall in MP matches. AI for SP matches is OK as the only thing the AI has to worry about is killing the characters. I'veb won against cardotron so many times with him either refusing to step off the VP or he steps off without any real threats and you win through VP. Decisions like that require you to look all your characters hands and evaluate if you're ready to run at an enemy. Way too hard for the AI.

 

Yeah no one is considering putting ranked rewards on an AI-only mode. That would completely subvert, like, everything about why rewards are the way they are.

 

I don't mean to criticize everyone's view wholesale, but the fact that so many of you take a strong position against resigning early in matches completely and utterly proves my point.

What may not be obvious to you is:
When it comes to card gamers in general, you are vastly in the minority.

Most card players want there to be the freedom to quit whenever they like. PvP can be intimidating, more difficult than PvE, frustrating ... however you want to look at it. Even many players who are extremely mature and would never throw a match are frequently going to be unhappy with a system where they can't throw a match if they want to.

I will be the first to agree that most card players are not ideal community members. Let's face it, probably 95% of card players can be described as either immature or selfish at least on some level. Well, you've set up a system that eliminates anyone with either of those traits. So the question is whether you want a game 20 times less popular or whether you are able to deal with the plain fact that not everyone is going to assume this selfless (or maybe a bit self-righteous) attitude about the purity of PvP matches, in which quitting early is selfish and therefore bad.

Most disagreements are problems of perspective. It's hard to understand how or why other people see things different ways, so you are stuck in your own view. All I am doing here is trying to reveal to you that there is a broad perspective you are missing. Maybe you think throwing a PvP match early is objectively bad, but I think that is extremely short-sighted. I have learned over the years that gamers game differently, and no one way is more valid than another. There is a band of reason which usually can exclude those who harm their fellow gamers intentionally -- in other words I am not defending "griefers" -- but that is far from the context we're describing here. We're talking about the extreme opposite end of the spectrum, where you want players willfully to accept a reduction in the quality of their own experience for the general good. "You have to be an altruist to play" is basically a cancerous approach if you're trying to grow a large gaming community. Just meet some gamers!

Anyway the writing is on the wall. The first response to my last post is from a dev who says that quitting early sounds like a horrible game experience. If you're going to eliminate modes of play because you personally don't like them, you are adopting exactly the perspective I am prescribing against. It's not a bad thing per se -- actually I quite agree with you on most points. It's just that it's going to severely limit the size of your active community in PvP.

 

I'm sorry that you didn't read my post about how the policy predates me being on the team and that my personal preferences as a player have never shaped policy. They just happen to align with it. But hey, this is the game I like. I got lucky.

 

Giving gamers what they want is not automatically the best way to grow a game. Focusing on the "general good" isn't a moral crusade against selfish players, it's a pragmatic approach to making the game a better experience for the majority of players. You could argue that allowing throwing games will accomplish that, but that doesn't follow from the assumption that most players want to do it. (Then you run into a paradox when you point out that most players don't want to wait in the queue again because someone threw a match.)

Personally, I doubt this is a make-or-break issue for most players. I'm guessing it takes quite a lot of multiplayer play before the player's attention moves away from collecting items, trying different builds, learning strategy, gunning for the next gold chest, etc. and turns toward the etiquette rules. I appreciate that there are people in this thread who care quite a lot, and that's important, but I'm skeptical that this translates to major changes in the size of the PvP community.

 

Sir V, I'm just curious. This is now page three of a thread where you announced in the first post (three weeks ago) that this game is not for you and you wanted to provide some feedback on your way out. Did you change your mind and decide to keep playing after all?

 

How early are we talking about quitting matches here? I've had people quit before the first move, but not that often.

For quitting a game, quitting on the first turn because you don't like your hand, that's what I see as "throwing a game", and I can see why everybody would be annoyed by it. You just wasted everybody's time because your opening draw wasn't perfect.

Now, quitting before the game is technically over, but the strategic situation has deteriorated so badly there's no way of winning, that I see as fine. You say gg, and concede. Disconnecting in that situation is lame, because again, it wastes everybody's time. And it's just poor sportsmanship.

Are there really that many games decided by the opening hand that can't be played out a few turns? If you draw all your bad stuff at once on turn one, then the rest of your draws should be awesome.

 

This is of course all accurate and in line with our policy.

 

I cannot help but notice you continue to appropriate the opinions of people not here to your own, while dismissing the opinions of those who are here.

 

I find it intriguing that Sir V acts like he represents all card players, or at least most. I happen to own and operate a sizable gaming shop, and I can tell you from experience that most players are nothing like what he is claiming. No one concedes card games when they look at a bad opening hand, and in games that allow Paris mulligans like MTG, players will typically go forward playing a hand that has a 3 or 4 card disadvantage due to repeat mulligans. Most players play their games out to the end, even making their opponents actually take the steps to win the game - in case they make mistakes and fail to play as effectively as you thought they would. Some players may scoop when it's clear they will lose for sure on their opponent's very next turn, but honestly that is the earliest I will typically see anyone resign. Fighting spirit and the idea that you may slip back into a game through lucky draws or opponent misplay are quite big in the CCG crowd, so I don't really know where this idea that people love to resign comes from... unless it's a strictly online phenomenon. If it is, then I'm sad the online communities that Sir V is evidently part of are so far removed from the more upbeat spirit of their table-top brothers.

On a tangent, I find it especially silly to resign early in this game because so little of the game state is public knowledge - in most games you can see a lot of the damage that an opponent can do to you because those cards must be "in play" to attack you. In CH, the attacks are all in hand so you really can't effectively evaluate your chances a lot of the time since you can't know the quality or types of your opponents cards until they are played.

 

There is a vast difference between online card players and offline card players -- and most of what you said I agree completely with for offline card players. Online players are much better defined as "video gamers" and have a different set of criteria for games -- and a much shorter attention span. The extreme gulf between styles is precisely why there has been an under-representation of online card games until recent years; getting offline card players to convert has always been (and continues to be) difficult.

I'm not trying to undermine your obvious familiarity and expertise but just point out to you that in my view we're really talking about two different things. And it's not a convenient difference I just made up for the sake of the argument, but one which is central to this industry and which I've looked at, analyzed and discussed at length before.

It does raise an interesting and completely separate point of what would happen if one wanted to design an online game strictly for offline card players. I don't think Card Hunter is that, but it's an interesting hypothetical given our conversation here.

I don't mean to come across as dismissive ... I just think there are a lot of people with a different view. My impressions are not "I think ___" so much as they are that "most people think ___" based on a lot of experience in those communities / with those games. I just thought it would be helpful to try and explain that. Of course it's just my opinion and anyone is welcome to disagree.

I presume that your views are representative even if they were not formative. Maybe that's wrong. Either way I think it's the wrong attitude to say that resigning early is a "horrible game experience." The point I'm making is that the choice to be able to do something -- that freedom -- is more relevant than whether or not you make the choice to quit early. Even if choosing option A is a bad thing to do in your mind (or anybody's mind) it's the freedom to choose option A that provides a better experience.

I thought it would be useful to start a discussion on related issues, and I'm just continuing the discussion. I hadn't posted here for about a week but there were some interesting points / questions brought up and I responded to them yesterday. And again now. I hope the conversation is useful, or at least interesting, for everyone here. Certainly it is for me.

To answer your question I haven't really played much in the past couple of weeks. I did log in and play a PvE quest once or twice here or there. If an event is open I will sign up for the free chests you get for last place (the default prize when you don't play any matches).