(Really need a subdivision for this.) http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/tsh/chromancer-adaptive-strategy-online-trading-card-g Look at this. Just look.
I'm looking! Are you excited? Dismissive? Drawing attention to the fact that it's a free-to-play browser-based TCG? Personally I lost all interest at point 2: "All our cards are part of limited digital print runs with serial numbers, and all cards in our system are treated as singular items that cannot be duplicated. This means, for example, that anyone who gets an alpha Booster pack as part of a Kickstarter award or as a prize at a convention is receiving a limited-supply item which will increase in value over time." Hex (http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/cze/hex-mmo-trading-card-game or http://hextcg.com/) caught my attention, but the world they've created didn't do anything to enthuse me so I'm only keeping a vague eye on it at the moment.
More just presenting it for future reference, and just to see if anyone else finds it interesting. The collectible aspect I couldn't care that much about(I've always leaned towards actual play compared to collecting or deck building.) but the gameplay itself intriques me very much.
I stumbled into that Kickstarter page yesterday as well. It sounds unique/different, but personally I can't be excited for a game when I have yet to see any real gameplay. These innovations of theirs could be absurdly stupid and/or poorly executed for all I know, so I'll wait until they're ready to show us something.
Apparently their utube channel does have gameplay, but its super unpolished. The interface looks worse than MTGO, which is saying something. There is just nothing here thats telling me its better than its competition. Solforge and Hex have a group with established credentials and who have already made successful popular card games. Who are these guys that i should trust them to make a better/comparable product? Making an actual good tcg isn't child's play. Making a game that plays drafting/limited well is especially tough, "we play TCGs" is not enough for me to believe they can do it. Also, their kickstarter rewards seem lackluster. I'm not gonna gamble on the underdog for no good reason. So let me get this straight, they are not going to provide full details on gameplay from the start? What possible reason would there be for this decision? Am I supposed to check back a few days later for full info before I back it (cause there is a good chance i'm gonna forget about this) or am i supposed to back it without full information (of which you actually do have but is withholding)?
I did say it was for future reference. Just something to put on a backburner and look at every now and again.
I went back and read their website and it does look like an interesting idea. The core gameplay sounds like it could be fun but the collectible economy that they're trying to create I have some reservations about. They say they're trying to create a truly free-to-play game but that there will be limited "print runs" of cards and that trading and buying of cards can occur between players. Pay-to-win and collectible aren't necessarily synonymous but I suspect that there's a very fine line. As you say, it will be interesting to see where it goes. And, if nothing else, I really like the look of the artwork (unlike Hex).
Yeah, if they focus on the gameplay, which I think is the thing they've really got going for them, ignore the moronic "print runs" idea(I thought one of the advantages of DCG's was you didn't have to worry about product.) and I think they'll do well. Interface needs work, the card borders need some looking at(Frankly, I don't like them, clutters up the space.) but, I think the game itself is solid.
Their art sure is spiky! Seems to me they talk a bit too much about innovation and rewards and economy, and not enough about the game. Good luck to them. though, if they come out with a well-received game I'll certainly try it.
Today I took a look at Solforge, which Jotun mentioned (I hadn't heard about it before). Sadly it seems as though it requires Windows Vista or later and I only have XP available so I can't check it out first hand. The review of it I read said that it was a lot of fun and mildly addictive, but that their reward system could use some work and it felt like it was veering towards being pay-to-win. I'd definitely give it a try if I was able...
Eh, I do think that for the most part, pay to win isn't a problem there. The card rarity and power are not equal in it, leaning towards the rarity = complexity or oddness. Basically, the commons have the boring yet practical, while the rares are awesome and maybe practical. I think Nekrium is going to need a hit though as they've got a few cards that take advantage of the system a little too well.
Hi guys - I thought I'd leave a quick response to your questions! Site in question: chromancer.com/kickstarter chromancer.com We are on Kickstarter for a reason and that's largely because the game is not yet completely built. So it's hard to "show you gameplay" of a game that's not all there. Also, people tend to overreact to stand-in graphics and we like to buffer the response as much as possible. Because what's GREAT about our game is not million-dollar pieces of art. It's that the game itself is amazingly fun, strategic and worth playing in the first place. We need the funds precisely to finish building the game and to put art into it. That said, this is a game which has been fully designed (over the course of many years and starting on paper) and not only are we happy to share the mechanics with you, but we also are happy to have you playtest the game with us. The game is fully functional online already unlike virtually all other games that Kickstart (including the ones you mentioned that showed no gameplay ahead of time) so if you have questions about the mechanics why not just come see for yourself, literally. All you need to get into a closed alpha is to ask us to join. Our next alpha tests will be this coming weekend. Our game is browser-based with no download and will run on any system or device without issue. I am the creator of the game, but above all a card player like you. The point you are making is extremely important and I have to say thank you for bringing it up. I have been on the receiving end of pay-to-win crap for as long as I can remember and there is zero reason I would ever put it on someone else. Here's the bottom line: People who talk about free-to-play products don't seem to understand the very basic fact that free-to-play is not just about game economics, but it is also about game design. In other words, you can have a free-to-play game in theory, but if it costs 60,000 hours of your time to compete with a paying player, that is not free-to-play. Chromancer is a game we've playtested for literally years and we know exactly what the most important cards are for deck design -- all the cards you need to best compete and be most successful. Well guess what. Those are the common cards in our system. Any common cards that you won't just get for free with a new account you'll be able to acquire easily by grinding just a bit or by buying them on the marketplace with your grinded-out in-game currency. We are confident that players will want to collect rares once they get into our game not because rares are more powerful, but because rares represent peripheral, complicated or other mechanics which can give more options for gameplay but absolutely no advantage. Our game is extremely skill-based and we are determined that a newbie with a starter deck can beat a veteran with 20,000 cards if he is skilled enough. Let me put it to you this way: We did not "start a company" to create a product. We created a product first -- that is, a great game -- for ourselves many years ago, and decided to put it online now for the public. We have zero incentive to maximize our profits or whatever through an abusive pay system. Not because we're idiots or amateurs when it comes to business; but because we subscribe to the belief that the most profitable products in the long-term are the ones which actually serve the user base properly and justly in the first place. Call us crazy but we're sick and tired of the pay-to-win tactics we see in many other games we play. I hope that answers your questions. I'd be happy to answer any others you have. If you'd like to try our game, just come by our site and ask.
Okay, is one of the things Internet Explorer users can't do is make accounts at your site? Just asking, cause I've been trying.
It might depend on your version of IE ... it's the only browser we don't fully support. Could you try Chrome or Firefox?
Tried Firefox, still keeps saying I've already registered (I haven't.) and I should try to log in, which I can't. Help.
Let me add a brief word here about our plan for persistent virtual goods. Several people in this thread have either said "I don't care" more or less or that they think we're missing the point in focusing on these things. Well, the real motivation behind using persistent virtual goods is to free the game design from economics that would otherwise threaten the integrity of the game. Usually, it is a major struggle of card game companies to balance collectibility with playability, because if a card is desirable for a player, it becomes desirable for a collector (and a merchant). In other words, if a card is good to have in a deck because it's effective or part of a popular deck strategy, then by definition in an open trading system that card is going to be sought after by collectors and merchants -- the more players want something, the more they will be willing to pay (or overpay) for it, so the better it is for a collector or merchant to hoard. This will make the card harder to get for players and more expensive, too -- and all that ends up doing from a player's perspective is make acquiring "good" cards harder and more annoying. On the other hand, if a game company solves the problem just by printing a million more of the card in question so everyone can have it, then players who care about using the card in decks are happy, but collectors have had their time and money wasted and will be pissed. Rightfully so. It is a jerk move of a game company to have you spend hours and hours (and if you want to some money) and then the next day invalidate your investment by mass-producing the same thing or making it vastly cheaper/easier to get. We remove both of these problems from the equation with persistent virtual goods. Basically, if you're a collector, you can collect the alpha version of a card and it will still have value. But if you're a player who cares about building effective decks, you can always use the same card with the same mechanics in a later print edition. It won't affect the way the card plays, but it will also not be the "rare" card on the market which merchants are after. This means that merchants can't mess up your game experience as a player on the one hand, but that on the other they themselves are not marginalized and can co-exist in our game with the people who actually do care about collection. Hope that clears a few things up. Since people have been asking about this a lot lately (not just on this forum) I intend to write an article about it on our website soon, also.
Okay, so essentially the game actually has first editions as opposed to everything being randomly generated, correct? I mean, I don't know much about collecting so I don't know if anyone cares about cards from anything but the first edition. Now, does this mean I could potentially be in a position where I cannot get a card in boosters at all, as the "supply" has run out, or will it simply mean that once a print run is completely within our grimy hands, a new one will be immediately generated.
We will probably start printing the next edition of something even before the current one "runs out" in the game store. No need for people not to have access to things they need to deckbuild normally! Also, over time people do collect various editions for various reasons. Sometimes they just like a certain edition's card art or card design. Just like real-life card games. We expect the same.
