Great! For that is the main reason I get frustrated (and stop playing) when I encounter a fun online game
I saw something about a chess clock being introduced into the game to keep the turns shorter. I also might have dreamt that though, this game is on my mind quite a bit lol. Edit: Yeah, here's the quote from Jon:
Fortunately, a chess clock isn't the same as an "energy" limitation, and we discussed energy previously. So no problem there. Myself, when I first saw an "energy system," I couldn't even believe it. It was the living embodiment of what players hate about MMO (and other online) games, yet it had been given a name as though it deserved to stand among other "systems." And I'm not joking when I speak so ill of it. Essay time! Think about every game you've ever played online, so long as there's some single-player component. You play the game, beef up your character, and get through all the content, and you're done. Now what? The company isn't going to make any more money off of you; you're DONE. So the company has a problem: players are getting through the content quickly and ceasing to play (and pay). They have a choice: add more content . . . or slow down the players. Adding content is hard. Expansion packs? Whew, hard! But they do it, and it makes money. Slowing down the players is easy. Rare item acquisition that requires a multiplicative combination of rare monster encounters and random loot? Easy! So they put in MIND-NUMBINGLY STUPID content like that, and tell you it's for your "epic" gear, and the players pay money to PLAY SLOWLY. It's not a game; it's a time sink. And money sink. And every player knows this; only the "epic" players ever put up with being slowed down so much, and the rest of us quit and go watch a movie. So then I saw an "energy system," and I couldn't even believe it. A formalization of the exact opposite of "gaming." A quantification of how you will NOT have fun today. Hi, I'm not on Facebook.
Actually, I find energy bars to be the embodiment of what I hate about coin-op games! INSERT COINS TO CONTINUE... We used to buy consoles, so we could play those same games without all the laundry money. However, there's no way to get an energy-bar-free version of most of those energy-bar driven Facebook games, and frankly, there wouldn't be much actual game there, even if you did. Most of them boil down to Grass Growing Online. Do I really want to spend money so I can do more chores? I have a real yard with real weeds that I can pull up, and nobody is charging me money for the luxury. Our primary goal, with Card Hunter, was to make something that was actually fun. I know, craaaaaaaazy idea, right?
I'd love to hear about a way in which the players can contribute by making content and delivering it to the community, much like Neverwinter Nights! Maybe not at launch, but somewhere in the cards...
See, everyone? Energy systems embody multiple sins of gaming at once. Their evil knows no bounds. They must be stopped!
Where/how can I fight it?!? We're definitely on the same page here, but how does Card Hunter earn money for all the work that's put in? I most definitely would like to contribute to a game like this! (and think I'm not the only one)
How will it earn money? . . . We don't know. This old thread is one place we've hashed and re-hashed the ideas. Then there's this brief one, repeating how it would be cool to just buy the game and ditch the current "Free To Play" idea. Of course, since it was designed from the ground up to be browser-based, they're not going to change the format such that "just buying the game" would work. But how will it earn money? We've had a lot of silence, and I'm getting a bit worried, myself. I mean, this thing is so very good AS IS, like the game (as demoed so far) is a solid experience you would "just buy" and enjoy. Is there some part of the demo experience that comes with a price tag? Is there some outside (buyable) factor that would change the experience in a fundamental way? It almost seems that any "and you pay for THIS bit" would seem alien after all the time getting used to the game without payment. (Hint: Blue Manchu, I eagerly "want to know more about" this.)
I second wanting to know more about the payment model. I've got it in my mind two ways. 1. The game is built around the single-player experience. The way Blue Manchu makes money is by selling modules, campaigns, or expansions to their game. The core would be free, and a good way to hook the audience, but BM would get paid, and we all know that you guys do need money. The problem with this model is it's almost impossible to not deviate into a sort of scenario where the game becomes pay to win on the multi-player side of things. For some reason this sits alright with me for Card Hunter. Most likely because of it's CCG foundation. I also like the idea of BM making their money off of new content. Makes me feel like the game will be fresh and new a lot more often, because they would have a monetary incentive. Also, depending on how multi-player is structured, selling maps to play on would most likely work as well. Maps, or map packs maybe? Maybe the multi-player maps would come with the campaign, and would have a connection via flavor. 2. A sort of cash shop based on vanity items. This would allow you to change the models of your characters, but I don't think that in this type of game that will get BM very far. With such a strong single-player aspect of the game I feel like I wouldn't have a strong desire to throw down my money (I would, just because I want to see BM succeed, but I'm not the general public). I'm sorry if any of this stuff was discussed in the two forums you posted Sir Knight. I plan on reading those tomorrow, but I am in desperate need of some sleep right now.
Wait, this game is fun? :/ ...it's been nice knowing you guys, but I'm going to head out. I'm just not looking for a fun game. I thought this was going to be something else. I want a tedious and frustrating experience. If this is going to be fun, I'm not interested. *ahem* Anyway... I too am interested in hearing more about the payment model, but also the non-payment model. What a player can buy to add to their game (new premium modules, "skins," whatnot) and also what they will continue to receive without buying (other new modules, less-attractive "skins," other whatnot).
Being a long term Paradox fan my experiences has been that if you guys deliver a good enough product and treat your fan base nicely then it's more than likely that people will shell out some cash for the produce. I think it is really important that these additional paid content doesn't have a detrimental effect on the "free" core game system and that free gamers don't feel they are being marginalized. It's a tricky balance since what you developer might view as illegitimate additional content might be seen by the fan base as something that should have been included in the first place. I know they've had this particular debate numerous times over at Paradox. Having said that the current progress looks very encouraging and I will be watching this space very closely.
Right now? Guys, I'd really just like something different to talk about. Don't care what, doesn't need to be anything much; just throw us a new tidbit to gnaw on. Please?
Yeah, that was different. Preferred the "Captain" games myself, but it was fun. Still, not something I'd discuss on the CH forums.
I'd like to know about the monsters. Specifically, I'd like to know about the cards monsters have that we don't. Where are the equalizers that make it fair for our expertly controlled team of three trained death-dealers to go up against the AI and his rickety skeletons? Cards like "Devour poorly placed Cleric" and "It doesn't matter how long you agonized over your decks I'll just one shot you". Admittedly, what I really want to see are just more cards. Cards that have made the cut, cards that didn't, cards put on the back burner for the time being. And should you have the time for idle speculation, what are your plans for the future of Card Hunter, assuming the launch goes flawlessly and you cruise into the sunset on mountains of cash-money? Unless of course, that is your plan.
I want to make my point here about , how they will make money, and they MUST make it or we wont be able to play the game, thats bad, and they deserve to get money for theyr effort. from a Free to play game perpective when you add the pay for especial overpowered items or whatever, all the comunity gets hurt,because of the competitive play. what is see that work is the fancy items and customes. but if you want the player to buy them, the player need to know that someone else than himself will see it. HOW?? cooperative game and multy player game. If you run a dungeon with 3 more guys you can show off your hats and armor. even luxury colourfull efects atached to them. If you only play by yourself some will buy that, but far less. Other way is with enchanced features, lets say SOFT features, for example: -You can play only with 3 characters, but if you pay you can have a 4th to select from when playing(or start with 4 and add from there). Other side you can find new characters to join you during some quests. -reespect, change a character's gender, race or class -temporal buffs for just one quest, not usable in multiplayer -buy items some levels below your average level, so if you want something specific of leser lvl you dont need to go back and farm it(time saver) -and so on. - Acces to quest (quest that need a map dropped somewhere otherside) Also if you pay for the game, you have priority in case the servers become full. hope you find this usefull
Hi ! I'd like to know more about lateral character progression and its control model. The dev diaries talk about skills, talents, items and stuff (lateral progression). Yet, I also see xp, level, hp and the traditional rpg elements (vertical progression). Right now, it is unclear to me 'why CH is attempting to marry lateral progression with vertical progression ?'. Its clear that vertical progression will constraint design space, why not simply just go lateral all the way, much like MTG ?? The power creep is more manageable and the design space grows instead of shrinking. Or is there a higher purpose to keeping the vertical progression element ? As it is, the idea of a bazillion hp/def/atk/stats is so old-school that its almost Blizzard dead, cf D3. Also, I'd like to clarify whether CH is intended as an MMO ? Or single player, local lan multiplayer only ? Seems like some posts are claiming its an MMO and some not.
I believe that the idea is to create a singleplayer campaign, à la traditional RPGs, that will have a multi-arc story to go along with the vertical character development. All levels will be equal for multiplayer competition. But the only tradtional stat is HP. Attack, defense, movement, and absolutely everything else are on the cards and the cards are chosen via deckbuilding -- almost completely lateral, with the only vertical constraints being for the campaign/story progression. (Also, they've used the term "Talents" in a somewhat unusual way, they are purely level-based and ought to be on your vertical list.) As far as the MMO thing, I think that's mostly Jon's shorthand way of describing his product and business model. CH is not massively multiplayer. It is online, server-based, with the goal of profiting from a game storefront. So far we have the singleplayer campaign and 1-on-1 multiplayer. Co-op modes have been a much-requested feature but not expected for the initial release.
I am nore interested to know about character growth and adventuring... this is the core aspect of rpgs
