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

What is your evidence for this? I see no basis to claim such a thing. The rewards are about equal now, they don't favour MP. Also, the MP rewards were increased because MP players were feeling they had to play SP to get gold for good MP items in shops, not because Blue Manchu wants to steer people to one mode or another. It was done because of player demand, to allow people to enjoy whichever mode they prefer -- and Blue Manchu succeeded as there have been no more complaints about this.

See Flaxative's posts for the original info:
(second to last paragraph) http://forums.cardhunter.com/threads/pve-droprates-are-too-low.6920/page-4#post-80538
http://forums.cardhunter.com/threads/pve-droprates-are-too-low.6920/page-4#post-80517

 

Yeah, I think that's how it works too. They ought to have a decent shot is think, but I might be biased. I meant it more as an example of something that would get more attention for cheaper than buying advertising. Bags get several days on the banner at kong, and then are permanent and may draw more people in looking for points. Not that I'd know anything about badge hunting. *whistles*

 

Indeed, badges definitely help giving games more exposition. It tends to be very limited in time (they usually feature games on the frontpage, whenever badges get added to a game). After the initial burst of players looking for more badges to be hunted down though, the average number of gameplay/month tends to return to the usual levels.

And even then, most badge-hunters very often jump from game to game w/o ever sticking to one specific game for a significant amount of time.

That being said though, more exposition is good exposition (especially when you don't pay for it ). So let's hope badges get added to CH, eventually, even if only a tiny fraction of the resulting new players can be converted.

 

Okay I phrased that wrong... They are giving more of an incentive to play MP than SP. I know grinding in SP can gain equal rewards, but simply playing for fun the rewards (overall) should be greater in terms of overall value and I am including league play in this thought.

 

No, they aren't giving more of an incentive to play MP than SP. I wasn't replying to your phrasing but to the idea behind it. You don't need to grind SP to get equal rewards as they have been designed based on average SP adventure completion times. So you can just play the way you enjoy most and be (on average) assured of equal rewards! Nice, isn't it!

Also, the leagues can easily be entered (and not played) as a part of SP play to get the three reward chests for 50 gold, so they can as easily be included in SP reward calculations.

 

Yeah I mean really it's just a chest shop in disguise

 

Respectfully:

There are a lot of hurdles for indie devs and one of the most pernicious is the self-affirmation of success in the light of contrary evidence. The reason is that contrary evidence rarely provides itself. It's easy to say "we don't spend money marketing" but frankly marketing is close to irrelevant for this kind of game. Why? A) because this kind of game already has a very large footprint when it comes to exposure: everyone who knows card games knows about this card game. So, your marketing is already done. B) it's a product on the "high" end of the spectrum in terms of its complexity and related commitment for a user. This is not a casual game compared to most. It's deep. (That's a very good thing in my book). But it also means you're not going to get zillions of players because you run a superbowl ad. Those types of games are the cookie-cutter mobile apps with a huge footprint (puzzle games and word games are most common) that are all the same and trade on ubiquitous advertising.

Further, seeing the stats on when players drop out of your game is extremely incomplete information and it is extremely dangerous for you to draw conclusions looking only at that. Let's take Kongregate as an example if you like. There are about 15k active card players and near every single one of them knows about you by now. How many of them have visited the site even once? The likely answer is less than 10%. If you study how gamer communities work you'll see that very few are explorative -- that is, very few actually try new games on their own -- and it's the overall impression you make in that group which will eventually determine whether you get more to join. You have to be "popular" before other people will give you a sniff.

I'm not a bad example (although you should definitely not care about converting one single person) -- simply in that I play 5-6 other card games with large populations concurrently and am constantly in discussion with others about new games. Take Monster Battles TCG newly on Kongregate -- I've had literally 20 people ask me about it in the last few days, casually, in other card games. If I say I like the game, those people visit; if I don't they wouldn't bother trying. Their initial community of 100ish folks are basically all from other card games on Kong that I (and of course some others) play. This all is not because I'm so great incidentally, but just because very few people go and try other games (on average). That's just reality. Maybe an easier way to look at it is that tons of players are more attracted to a popular game. Sort of a catch-22, annoyingly!

-- One aside is that actually here's somewhere you can up the numbers with marketing -- but it's a moot point and money thrown into nothing: unless you are expecting to be a game that very few players actually like, you don't need to spend on the marketing if you are instead able to convert the new-game tryers.

Anyway ... this is a good game, well built, lots of positive qualities and its very easy to be insulated from criticism because well hey, it's a good game. It's also very easy to assume that everything you're doing is correct because you have no evidence to the contrary. It's an old problem that repeats itself time and time and time again for indie devs that don't have years of market wisdom and/or huge budgets for QA teams. The exact same issue exists for game design. Tons of indie games have critical game design flaws they never learn about because the players that stick around like the flaws and the (potentially many more players) that don't, don't.

This is also why forums are a bad place for this kind of discussion. That's on me ... I expect to back off after this post as I think it's only so useful to continue on.

I'm not here to lecture you on anything. I'm here to give you feedback. My feedback is that you have an elitist, narrow community footprint. I actually don't think it will prevent lots of players from at least trying the game because it's so well built, appealing, well marketed and easy to play. That said I think it will severely hamper your ability to keep players over a long period of time or build a large community. Maybe my senses are off, but I base these statements on experience with let's call it 30 other online card games, and their communities from inception to maturity (and often beyond).

 

As a last note I'd like to add that I'm a fan of this game. Anyone who asks me about it I tell they should play it, that it's fantastic and that it's really innovative. I hate the fact that I am coming across as someone with serious problems with this game. I don't have any -- it's a great game. I pretty much think everything rocks except a couple minor details.

 

I wouldn't exactly call this forum a place where the devs are insulated from criticism .

By the way, if the flaws you claim are there are not preventing people from trying the game then the data Blue Manchu have is an accurate representation of the reasons people leave and they have nothing to worry about from the alleged flaws (which will also thus not hamper anything). Also, if a good word from the few explorers is required to get a bigger crowd over here then Blue Manchu seems to has no worries there, mate, if even you, the only one expressing these concerns, are already evangelising for the game.

 

If you include the leagues in SP calculations you are a bad analyst. Even if you don't need to play, playing leagues is one of the fastest ways to move up the ladder (excluding the ironically named Quick Draw) AND it is part of the MP interface AND you get better rewards if you win.

I can say with confidence that when I play I get much better rewards per hour in MP over SP, but that does include leagues in MP. Without league play it might be closer.

 

It's kind of a YMMV thing. The calculations were based upon average MP vs. average SP with equal time spent, not including leagues. If you have a greater than 50% MP win rate and/or a blitz build that wins or loses quickly you should beat the average. If you have strong SP builds and concentrate on the adventures you can rip through quickly, you should also beat the average. The average isn't actually published, so we can each consider ourselves above average if we feel like it.
The results are random, so some days you'll net tons, and some days you'll net squat. Therefore, some days you are rewarded for great playing, and some days you are robbed by a dastardly RNG. This is also balanced between modes.

 

I disagree. If you don't include it in SP reward calculations you are leaving out an obvious way to get chests quickly for very little resources. Zero playing time and the negligible 50 gold. Why should such an accessible method be left out of the SP item-getting toolbox? It seems to me it matters little which screen it is on. It's not exactly hidden away.

The benefits leagues have for MP ladder advancement don't make leagues not usable to supplement SP play. I know from long experience many SP players use them like this.

 

Yes clearly you disagree, but in no world are leagues part of SP. The fact that you choose to enter and not play doesn't change the fact the leagues are part of the MP interface. You can choose to enter leagues but in doing so you are playing the MP game even if you never actively participate... remember if you are the only one who signs up you do not get put into a pod and do not receive rewards, leagues should be viewed as part of MP because it REQUIRES multiple players.
Forgive the quibbling over semantics, but when you distinguish between 2 things you should actual draw the line based on the meaning of the words. When I analyze the difference should I include the Loot Fairy in MP rewards just because I hunt the fairy?
So to answer your question, no reason someone shouldn't join MP leagues if they are an"SP player" (makes it easier for me to get 3rd or better for the purple), but including it in a comparison is between the 2 is logistically wrong.

 

Well for someone like me who is not as interested in raw gold per/hour but the ability to get the items I want a comparison like this is less meaningful anyway. If I get an epic or legendary item in a drop that I would pay to buy in a shop (when available) it is worth the buy price to me not the sell price. I would rather have 1 desirable legendary item, than to have 100 common items I would immediately sell even if they both sell for the same amount. Since there are no guaranteed Epic+ in SP beyond the 1 time treasure hunts it compounds the value MP offers over SP.

 

I find it more meaningful to distinguish between SP and MP based on whether you need to actually play against humans or not to get chests as it is this which many SP players choose to avoid. The league chests are accessible without having to play a match. None of the five podmates need to play a match to still get the three chests. There just need to be five podmates but they can all be SP players.

I agree this is a grey area. Nevertheless, I maintain the interface/labeling/functionality location is less important compared to the "no playing against humans" distinction. I do understand the opposite choice, though.

 

Perhaps that is because you state you have quit the game over these minor quibbles. Normally people don't quit over things they consider minor. It's honestly a bit perplexing to me that you can cite these things as reasons you're leaving, yet call them minor at the same time. You argue pages upon pages to try to prove these "minor details." Your actions just don't add up with your claim that these things are minor to you.

 

To be clear, just because I personally dislike something doesn't make it into a bigger deal than it is. Personally I find a system where PvP rewards are better than PvE but the PvE game is the better game (which is how I see it, for several reasons) is frustrating and not something I fully enjoy. I think it's useful to explain why that is -- and especially useful because I think people in this community are overly insulated to this kind of feedback. That doesn't mean I think the game sucks or anything (nor have I ever said that).

It's also a bit a matter of time-sink ... I have a big gaming portfolio but also a full-time job and while there can be some overlap I can't really commit to hours and hours of playing any one game anyway.

 

Luckily, Card Hunter does not have such a system.

 

The best CH has to offer is casual PvE play. But casual PvE play is not enjoyable because casual PvE play has drop rates that suck compared to PvP.

You can continue to think the rates are the same because grinding and PvP roughly equate. But that has nothing to do with casual PvE and nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Grinding and casual PvE are very different things.

Every game with PvE and PvP modes encounters some version of this problem. The usual solution is either to incentivize PvP in some other way, like having rewards that are unique to PvP only, or to make grinding harder by reducing grinding-specific drop rates or making games take longer even if you're grinding. Since the prize pool is identical in this game and grinding is not treated separately from PvE like it should be, one of the two modes -- PvE or PvP -- has to be more attractive than the other. In this game, it's extremely tilted towards PvP, and that makes perfect sense because:

1. The devs want more people in PvP. More people makes the PvP experience better, while more or fewer people in PvE doesn't matter for the experience. The devs also have a personal preference for PvP. This is not uncommon -- in fact almost all devs I've ever met of card games have this same preference!

2. The player base is largely veteran here and knows the content extremely well; so they are naturally inclined to PvP as the interaction is more interesting to them than finishing up their collections with the same old PvE grinding.

3. It's a self-fulfilling situation as it repels PvE players in the first place. With a more-PvP-centric population, it makes more sense to cater to that population. And the more you cater to it, the more it becomes prominent.

4. PvP players are vocal (by definition they are more comfortable with interaction) so it's easier to serve their needs since they make them known and give feedback to changes most actively.

 

What does any of that have to do with added waiting time when resigning PvP games early, which you asserted would drive off 90% of players?