Wishing Well (new shop)

Discussion in 'Feedback and Suggestions' started by Magus, Jul 30, 2015.

  1. DunDunDun

    DunDunDun Thaumaturge

    Go ahead and skip two posts down.

    Previous wall of text post:
    >>You're not the only one sleep-deprived, so note that any seeming conveyance of irritation or harsh tone or phrasing, is due to that and not intentionally directed.<<
    Sorry :X

    For anyone not wanting to read a wall of replies, just skip to the next post.



    Missing my point in that it still favors a few specific items. I was also referring toward mechanic changes on the whole, not just wishing well specifically.


    Not true. It'll be more repetitive than now, but it more ways.
    For example, you look at an elven warrior and immediately thing 'oh, it's probably a bejeweled build.'
    Now imagine having to do that for every race/class combo, because people've figured out the two items or so that make builds work easiest, fastest.
    Sure, after a certain ELO that'd die off, but it's a fair concern at mid tier.



    I don't follow.
    But it sounds like what you want isn't a standard competitive CCG or dynamic deck building game, but an open draft mode [open draft allows you to take any cards you want to build decks with, or with minor restrictions.].
    If that's what you're interested in, you're better off asking for that to be added as a distinct mode, there's no way to even begin to approach that with standard pvp without compromising how the game functions.


    Please don't reply with inane comments that give no actual information, it just wastes both of our time and makes light of my efforts to understand you.


    That's entirely illogical, as it doesn't relate to my point whatsoever.
    My point is that there's no proof that building with 'non-ideal item's can't compare to building with 'ideal' items.
    You haven't yet shown that all top tier players use dominantly rarer-item decks, or made any efforts to build bejeweled-style decks to counter those top tier, or pointed toward anyone that has.
    Until that is done, anything you say is conjecture and sentiment, nothing more- and especially emphasized by how new you are to the game.

    This doesn't DIMINISH your sentiments in any way, but at the same time it means this specific point isn't one you can hold up to support your sentiments- especially since several older players have argued against that point, and their experience holds more validation than your lack thereof.

    You may of course be right, but at this point, we can't say for sure either way, can we?

    Again, it's an issue with wanting specific things;
    If it wasn't, you'd be promoting an Aloyzo approach to things to add more bejeweled style items in to give more variety to dominant common item selection, or even just arguing why common and uncommon and rare items can't compete with epic and legendary items.

    So far, you've only argued why you need epic and legendary items ["for ideal builds"], not why you can't use more common items to similar effect.

    For example, yes, Blue Destruction has 6x arcane bursts; but why can't you use various ember burst staves, or staves with a few arcane bursts each?
    Or was your ideal build one based around min-maxing how many arcane bursts you had?

    In that sense, it sounds more like you're aiming for concept builds than competitive builds.

    Give us an explanation on why the system is setup so that you HAVE to have epics and legendaries specifically to compete, and you'll have a strong argument to work with.



    I meant the game isn't structured with free item flow in mind at the moment, it would imbalance the balance of item gain in pvp and pve, the organic gain of items, etc.
    Again, my points are made in broad spectrum, not in relation to Wishing Well specifically.
    None of the rest of your comment here is relevant to the point I'm making :)


    This is absolutely irrelevant to the topic being discussed.
    The need to balance cards or add in cards to balance cards, or otherwise affect how cards are, is irrelevant to the provision of items.
    In other words, you can't use 'this card is broken' as a valid argument for 'so we should be able to access other items'.
    You could make a lot of arguments- 'this card should be rebalanced [ie, elven manuevers dropped to a single card cycled instead of 3]' or 'similar human cards should be added and elven spellcaster cards and so forth', but none of those very valid arguments would be relevant to this topic.

    You're taking two very different topics and trying to blend them together into one, and it's not at all reasonable to do that :p

    As an example-
    'Dwarves are too tanky' should lead to 'rebalance dwarves or other races', not to 'so give every easier access to non-dwarf skills'.


    That is the main _requirement_ - because of how CH handles rarity and items (especially with regards to high-consistency items like Vibrant Pain), you need to be able to get a specific item or you can't play many builds (go ahead, show me a burst build without a burst staff, a volcano build without a volcano staff, a bless build without the bless bones, etc).

    Not every.
    And yes, there is. This is a very specialized tactical RPG hybrid game, based around content-driven loot gain [rather than things like daily quests and gold income], and PvE/PvP balance maintenance.
    There's a different balance to consider.

    And you're not arguing for being able to trade cards- and lets use 'generate' or something instead of craft, that confuses me now that we have custom item submissions- or being able to generate cards.
    If that's what you want, then you should be, for example, promoting the badges system that has been discussed before, where you can find/earn badges through pvp and pve or deconstructing items of higher rarity, and apply those as trade-in currency.
    Or heck, a whole lot of other ideas that would work.

    You did specific you didn't want any sort of randomized elements, and it's pretty unlikely we'll see too much acquiescence given to ideas based around being able to directly buy specific items.
    Player trading seems a bit iffy to be added in now, and trading-in could really only be done for randomized returns.

    Well, I have a different idea that may work, let me toss it out at the next post.


    I can't make any sense of this comment, and that's not even accounting for the use of acronyms. :X
     
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2015
  2. DunDunDun

    DunDunDun Thaumaturge

    Go ahead and skip one post down.


    Previous yet-another-idea:
    PvE: 1 Star per adventure run, 5 stars for fairy/bandit finds
    PvP: Stars given at end of day based on current ELO, assuming at least 5 wins that day. [Eg 1600 ELO might give 30 stars.]

    Adding an epic to the 'pool': 20 Stars
    Adding a leg to the 'pool: 100 Stars.

    Can 'bid' on any item in the pool by spending stars on it.
    Those stars equal 'number of entries'. As each instance of an item cycles out, you have a chance to gain that item equal to the number of entries you have.
    EG, if you bid 5, I bid 4, and Jon bids 1, you'd have a 50% chance of winning the item.

    Your stars remain allocated until you win an item of that type [they're not used up until you win an item].

    Thus you can keep allocating more stars into the same item to stack the odds in your favor.

    Once you win the item, all stars allocated to that item are removed.



    This is somewhat derived from the system used in a game I worked on, and the system we used there worked well.

    Not really sure if it's a vibe that fits here, though, but thought I could at least post it to get your response.


    Well, my various offered ideas aside, keep in mind they're all offered as prompts, you need to help figure out what'd work for you-
    Keeping in mind that direct shop purchase of items is perhaps the least likely thing Jon'll consider.
     
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2015
  3. Magus

    Magus Orc Soldier

    Let's try that last comment again, with more sanity:

    The two types of items I can think of that gate access to builds are:

    a) A specific card is only on a very limited set of items, and you need access to that card [Bless, Volcano, etc].

    b) A specific item grants many copies of a card that's otherwise hard to obtain for low cost, and you need to be able to run an extreme number of the card [Vibrant Pain, Blue Destruction, etc]

    As such, there are two separate problems in need of fixing.

    A is an easier fix: Let you name one card via some means (possibly with cost), and at least one way of getting items is more likely or guaranteed to spawn one item of that type - I prefer this as "name one _card_ (not item) per week, and Randimar's will include that card on something next week", but there are clearly a million options.

    B is the harder fix: It's possible you just use the original Wishing Well suggestion (or the V2 that says "every item you get of the appropriate rarity has an N% chance to be that item until you get a copy"), but limit it only to items with many copies of a card.

    Alternate solutions to B include doing this with the items that contain many copies of a card you choose for A (so that you can effectively only look for one of A or B per time period, in most situations), just having a permanent shop for these items at double price, adding one more item to the Daily Deal that is always one item from this category and never repeats until every item (from this category) has spawned, etc. Would be happy to hear more ideas on this.

    [Definition of "many copies": any item where the rarity is penalized because it contains multiple copies of a card, ie 3 copies on a 3-card item or 4+ copies on a 6-card item]

    (EDIT: Added spacing by request.)
     
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2015
  4. Flaxative

    Flaxative Party Leader Staff Member

    My 2¢ on these points of contention, from both a player's perspective and a developer's perspective, divided by PvE and PvP because they are totally different beasts. No comments on the actual suggestions because they're all kind of far-out pipe dreams in terms of implementation so no need to nitpick anything.

    Flaxative-as-a-Player's Perspective - PvE
    • Getting specific anything for PvE is unnecessary. PvE is about solving puzzles with what you have. Occasionally you use the shops to upgrade your low-level gear, or buy some niche blocks or something, but basically you can 100% the campaign and expansions (not necessarily quests) with only what drops through normal play, not even including club membership. I've always been confused by players who claim they need Firestorm or Nimble Strike to succeed at the campaign. Sure, some specific cards are nice for some quests or for PvE grinding, but those are nonissues for me as a player and grinding isn't even an intentionally support game mode.

    Flaxative-as-a-Player's Perspective - PvP
    • I'd like to own max of every item for PvP so I can build whatever's fun, with a wide array of options. After about 2 years of playing Card Hunter I have a lot of flexibility but I'm still missing items that would make some builds more viable (e.g. Searing Pain). I recognize that I do not need all items in the game in order to have fun, but I know I would have a bit more fun if I could access everything. I also think world chat would have fewer complaints about opponents if we all had equal footing in terms of collection breadth. The one downside to this prospect is that inventory management is worse the more items you have.

    Flaxative-as-a-Dev's Perspective - PvE
    • It's important that players acquire loot at about the rate at which they acquire it. The mystery and occasional struggle in the campaign are intentional designs and if players had everything most of the game would take place in the deckbuilder rather than in the modules. Loot rewards are also a driving factor for players rewarding themselves by playing. Would the game be too easy if people could wish themselves a couple Searing Pains? No, but you want to make sure that the main way to progress through the campaign is to actually, well, play the campaign.

    Flaxative-as-a-Player's Perspective - PvP
    • As a dev, I honestly wish every player had unlimited copies of every item for the purposes of PvP. There is literally nothing good about having a competitive loot chase. The ranked (and constructed league) environment would be healthier the more access folks have—seemingly broken niche items would find their rightful place in the metagame, for one thing. Everyone could play the deck they want to play. Would we see some cookie-cutter build sharing? Maybe—but wouldn't there be a greater diversity of those builds than there is now, when so many people run Cult of Bejeweled (previously 3DC)? Also if everyone had everything balance issues would be far clearer and balancing would be easier.

    I tell my friends this pretty often, but one of CH's biggest problems as a competitive game is that its loot acquisition rate is tied roughly to a singleplayer loot chase model. I still kind of want to convince Jon to offer a package (maybe $20?) that disables the campaign (or maybe just eliminates loot chests), effectively making an account PvP only, and gives the purchasing player 9 of every item. It's not high priority but you know. Dreams.
     
  5. DunDunDun

    DunDunDun Thaumaturge

    That last idea seems pretty terrible to me, Flax. :p
    The entire issue is pvp imbalance, giving an approach that favors that is counterproductive.

    Also, I haven't given but one suggestion so far, just prompts, so don't misunderstand those. :p
    [I think I was a bit erratic at being sure to clarify that :X]

    The one actual suggestion I gave was 'add an open draft component to pvp', which, while certainly demanding to add in, doesn't quite seem like a pipe-dream :)

    It's the simplest, perhaps most effective way to approach pvp players who want a 'fair, ideal match', and by now, I still think it's the best course.

    Of course, the real question is if it's necessary enough to the player base to be worth adding in, I suppose.
     
  6. Flaxative

    Flaxative Party Leader Staff Member

    ? Giving everyone everything is the opposite of favoring imbalance. It levels the playing field and makes it easier for us devs to get good data on what's broken so we can fix it. No great e-sport or competitive game is predicated on people having different access to build options.
     
    Magus likes this.
  7. Magus

    Magus Orc Soldier

    Would buy this. Would prefer it if it only gave the items for PvP somehow (so that I could still play SP with my actual collection, as I actually enjoy co-op), but would buy it anyways (would just have to make a PvP alt which would rapidly become a main.)
     
  8. Pawndawan

    Pawndawan Champion of Cardhuntria

    One workaround could be to host regular high profile PvP tournaments in the test server, where the mentioned item restrictions don't apply.
     
  9. Lucky Dice

    Lucky Dice Thaumaturge

    May I say something?

    It sounds like a solid pay to win. You're paying $20 to have an access to every card. You can build anything without having to earn it, and earning that is full RNG. I'd suggest something different...

    You double or triple the cost of every item in every shop in exchange of everybody getting 9x of that item. Meanwhile the chests have lower percentage for the rares, epics and legendaries, but when they are received, it's 9x, just like from a shop.

    The "guaranteed" part would then have to be changed likely, but that's just an idea.
     
    DunDunDun likes this.
  10. Flaxative

    Flaxative Party Leader Staff Member

    How? It'd just be pay to play [the unfettered competitive game]. Skilled free to play players would still dominate the leaderboards. Remember none of this has anything to do with 'winning.' Nothing about this thread or any of the problems people are talking about have anything to do with winning. Carry on...
     
  11. Lucky Dice

    Lucky Dice Thaumaturge

    I mean, yeah, but a new player will have a hard time winning anything. Hence "pay to win".

    One TCG I played had a cool system, that allowed for all players, winners and losers, to get something. Losers just had a smaller consolation prize. That allowed for all people to make a deck faster.

    But here, without good items, especially on Wizard, it's not efficient to run him, because he pales in comparison to a Wizard with good items. Of course, every dog has its day, but... that's the thing. Skill makes you win games, but winning games lets you enhance your heroes, so they can win games even safer.
     
  12. Flaxative

    Flaxative Party Leader Staff Member

    A new player with every item in the game will not 'win' more than a new player with Bejeweled Shortsword.
     
    Magus likes this.
  13. Lucky Dice

    Lucky Dice Thaumaturge

    New player probably won't. But more experienced players? Sure enough.
     
  14. Vakaz

    Vakaz Guild Leader

    What? This seems like using a nuke to kill mouse. :confused:

    I definitely think that there needs to be easier ways to get top-tier items, because it still takes a really long time to put a competitive collection together. But only baby steps have been attempted to fix this so far (randimar's change, leagues, MP reward chests, etc). Your solution seems really drastic. A "pick the item you want shop" like what has been suggested in this thread has been not been tried yet, and I think there are numerous other ways to improve the current item-hunting system before just throwing it out completely.

    Your proposal "fixes" the problem (players feeling limited by how much they've played), but then adds another; players feeling limited by whether or not they pay Blue Manchu money. Yes, some paying players would have more fun with their new complete item collections. But F2P players would definitely have much less fun when facing them, since now they would be playing people with every item in the game instead of just people with lots of them. Not to mention that you're basically forcing players who were already playing competitively to pay up or become noncompetitive.

    Considering that this game is called "Card Hunter", I think it would be kind of silly to implement a system that eliminates the title from it's gameplay...
     
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2015
    DunDunDun likes this.
  15. Flaxative

    Flaxative Party Leader Staff Member

    :p

    That title was for the singleplayer loot chase game. Remember that PvP was a late addition that was not part of the original design!
     
  16. Magus

    Magus Orc Soldier

    I look forward to the imminent release of Card Fighter, a PvP-exclusive game by the designers of Card Hunter. (And I will definitely be buying it. September 2016 sound good to you guys?)
     
  17. DunDunDun

    DunDunDun Thaumaturge

    And you need to remember that so long as the singleplayer still connects to the multiplayer, what you're proposing tears out the heart of the game for people interested in both sides of what CH has to offer, AND gives a dramatically pay to win vibe- regardless of how you attempt to justify it.
    Suffice it to say, I'd go from being one of CH's biggest, most vocal fans, to a very quiet, 'yeah, no, I can't say much good about the team anymore. They used to be better.'

    Besides, I've seen games attempt what you're suggesting, and it never ended well. The free to play players felt stifled and left, and with all content available the pvp side became stale and shrank as well.

    Besides, what you're proposing is silly in its overcomplexity. It's easier to host a second server- ala the Test Server- with no restrictions, for players that want to play that. After all, not like they'll care about earning loot anymore, if they already own all of it. Or, if you'd like to keep the player base together, which seems desirable, you'd add an open draft mode.

    Why would you need to modify the entire game to do something that can be done with less intrusive means?

    The fact is, any time you charge for something that doesn't need to be charged for and that separates one player set from another, it's pay to play/win.

    There's just no other way to perceive it.
     
    Lucky Dice, Merdis and Vakaz like this.
  18. Flaxative

    Flaxative Party Leader Staff Member

    Your objections only serve to further demonstrate my point. Card hunter is multiple games and its variety treads all over itself.
     
    Magus and timeracers like this.
  19. To take a wild side-step, what if there were an option for the losing player in a match to immediately offer a re-match -- same board, same rules, but with swapped parties? You'd probably have to show each player the build right before the rematch starts, just so they have a better notion of what they've got to work with if the previous game was short and ended up providing not much info, but I think that should wait after the rematch was accepted rather than before.

    It'd allow an aggravated player a fair chance to prove his claim that the only reason he lost was because his opponent had qualitatively better gear full of overpowered or underpriced cards... or for the victor to demonstrate the opposite.

    To provide an incentive for the winner to agree, perhaps one could count a second victory in the rematch as 1.5 or even 2 instead of 1 on the rewards track.
     
    Eren and DunDunDun like this.
  20. Obernoob

    Obernoob Hydra

    I totally agree. I have played for an half year now and before getting tired of the firestorms and ww I also played round about three month. I already have every Common, Uncommon, Rare and Epic and of the needed items of this rarities I have already a playset. But there are still a lot of good legendaries of which I have none. And that after nine month of intensive far.. eh ... playing.

    Another way for this whishing well would be something like for playing at least one game 14 days in a row (or maybe winning at least one game?) you can choose a legendary and then buy it for 5000 gold?

    Or more in the style of current implementations: After winning a match every day of a week you get five legendaries between you can choose? But maybe this is to close to the current solutions and just another babystep which will not be enough.
     

Share This Page